Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

House of Commons Education Committee

Behaviour and discipline in schools

Written evidence – Web

Volume 1

List of written evidence

Volume I

1 DEA 1 2 John Bangs 3 3 Zacchaeus 2000 Trust 8 4 Alison Peacock, Cambridge Primary Review and The Wroxham Primary School, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire 15 5 Professor Stephen Gorard 21 6 National Union of Teachers (NUT) 27 7 Demos 34 8 Jeff Hardman, Director, European Education Consultants Ltd 41 9 Incorporated Society of Musicians 42 10 Dr Sue Roffey 44 11 Jackie Deasey 49 12 Dr Simon Gibbs 50 13 The Adolescent and Children’s Trust (TACT) 54 14 Dr Jeremy Swinson 62 15 Dominic Boddington, Respect4us 66 16 John Corrigan, Director, Group 8 Education 70 17 David Wright 77 18 Professor David Foxcroft, Professor of Community Psychology and Public Health, Oxford Brookes University 78 19 Helen Earl, Educational Psychology and Behaviour Support Team Children’s Services, Cumbria County Council 80 20 Dr Richard Crombie, Specialist Senior Educational Psychologist: Social and Emotional Development 83 21 Edison Learning 86 22 Food For Life Partnership 91 23 Fiona Wallace, Head of Behaviour Support Service, Link Centre 102 24 The National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE) 104 25 Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England 111 26 National Children’s Bureau 119 27 Institute of Education 124 28 National Association of Head Teachers 135 29 Association of School and College Leaders 140 30 YoungMinds 147 31 Liz Vickerie, Head of Support for Learning, and Kerrigen Marriner, Head of Behaviour Support, London Borough of Tower Hamlets 154 32 SHS 158 33 Rob Gasson, Senior Manager, Additional Education Provision, Children, Schools and Families, Cornwall County Council 165 34 Research in Practice 171 35 Youth Justice Board for England and Wales 176 36 Joint Epilepsy Council 180 37 Croydon Department of Children, Young People and Learners 186 38 Department for Education 191 39 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy 201 40 TreeHouse 203 41 Telford and Wrekin and Shropshire Educational Psychology Service 212 42 The Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ltd (ADCS) 217 43 Granada Learning 221 44 Children’s Food Campaign 226 45 Oxfordshire County Council 231 46 The Runnymede Trust 240 47 Marlborough Family Education Service 247 48 I CAN 252 49 Association of Teachers and Lecturers 256 50 The Association of Education Psychologists 265 51 NASUWT 272 52 School Food Trust 285 53 Teacher Support Network 287 54 Special Educational Consortium 293 55 Kent County Council 301 56 Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education 306 57 Buckinghamshire County Council 311 58 West Sussex Educational Psychology Service 318 59 Pearson 320 60 Anti-Bullying Alliance 323 61 National Governors’ Association 330

Volume II

62 Children’s Rights Alliance 332 63 The National Autistic Society 338 64 Southampton Psychology Service, Southampton City Council 348 65 Voice: the Union for Education Professionals 351 66 Barnardo’s 357 67 Advisory Centre for Education 364 68 Paul Bird 373 69 NFER 374 70 Birmingham Educational Psychology Service 385 71 Ofsted 389 72 National Strategies 400 73 Dr Heather Geddes, UKCP Reg Educational Psychotherapist, The Caspari Foundation 408 74 Parentline Plus 411 75 The British Psychological Society 414 76 Supplementary memorandum submitted by the British Psychological Society 427

77 Tom Burkard 432 78 Carl Parsons, Visiting Professor of Educational and Social Inclusion, Centre for Children, Schools and Families, University of Greenwich 443 79 Catch22 453 80 ContinYou 457 81 Dr David L Moore CBE 460 82 Youth Sport Trust 463 83 Anita Kerwin-Nye, Director, The Communication Trust 469 84 Professor Judy Hutchings and Dr Tracey Bywater on behalf of the Incredible Years Wales (IYW) Team, Bangor University 470

Memorandum submitted by DEA

About DEA DEA is an education charity that promotes global learning. We work to ensure that people in the UK learn about global issues such as poverty and climate change and develop an open-minded, global outlook. DEA defines global learning as education that puts learning in a global context, fostering: • critical and creative thinking; • self-awareness and open-mindedness towards difference; • understanding of global issues and power relationships; and • optimism and action for a better world. DEA is a membership body, with over 150 organisational members including subject associations, universities, local authorities and many development and environment NGOs in the UK.

Analysis and recommendations

1. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools 1.1 A wide range of strategies and activities have been shown to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools. Given our area of expertise, we focus on the impact that global learning has on attendance and behaviour. 1.2 Research from the Department for Education (DfE), Ofsted, DEA and others highlights that learning about global issues such as poverty and sustainability encourages positive behaviour. 1.2.1 Research from DfE highlights that: “involving young people in discussions, decision-making and action to do with how the school and community responds to sustainability, provides a firm foundation for their future social participation and leadership, and results in improved behaviour.”1 1.2.2 Research from Ofsted states that: “learning about sustainability captures the interest of children and young people because they can see its relevance to their own lives.” Further to this Ofsted notes, “some school leaders identified links between particular pupils’ involvement in sustainable activities and improvement in their attitudes and behaviour generally.”2 1.2.3 Research from DEA finds that amongst those who have learnt about global issues in school, nine-in-ten are either involved in, or interested in getting involved in some form of positive social action, such as recycling or volunteering. However, amongst those who have not learnt about global issues a fifth are not interested in getting involved in any form of positive social action.3

1 DfE, 2010, The impact of sustainable schools, London:TSO 2 Ofsted, 2009, Education for sustainable development, Manchester:Ofsted 3 Hogg, Shah, 2010, The impact of global learning, London:DEA 2

1.3 As noted above by Ofsted and by others, one of the reasons that learning about global issues supports and reinforces positive behaviour is because it captures the interested of children and young people, who can see its relevance to their own lives. Research into young people’s views of the future finds strong evidence that, “regardless of age, the environment is a consistent theme in [young people’s] concerns about the future and that providing collaborative, positive and supportive learning environments is vital in helping students to raise and deal with their concerns.”4 1.4 Global learning can support and reinforce positive behaviour through an emphasis on critical and creative thinking, self-awareness and open-mindedness towards difference. In both formal and non-formal education contexts, these approaches help to build young people’s confidence, empathy and sense of social responsibility, all of which support and reinforce positive behaviours.5 1.5 This research offers a compelling picture that learning about global issues and sustainability can: engage young people in their education; improve attendance; and improve behaviour whilst at school. An approach that incorporates global learning is particularly beneficial because it is a preventative approach; rather than managing poor behaviour once it has arisen, offering opportunities for global learning can help to prevent poor behaviour becoming an issue in schools.

August 2010

4 Hicks and Holden, 2007, cited in DfE, 2010, The impact of sustainable schools, London:TSO 5 See for example DEA, 2010, Connect, Challenge, Change: A practical guide to global youth work, London:DEA

Memorandum submitted by John Bangs

INTRODUCTION

1. I was the Head of Education for the National Union of Teachers from 1993 to September 2010. One of my responsibilities was representing the NUT on the previous Government’s Ministerial Stakeholder Group for pupil behaviour. I thought it would be helpful, therefore, if I provided a personal commentary on particular aspects of issues around pupil behaviour. I have used the Select Committee’s specific issues framework for this letter. I retired in September this year, from the National Union of Teachers. I am taking up a number of new opportunities, including appointments at the Institute of Education, Cambridge University and a consultancy with Education International.

THE SUBMISSION

2. There is a general consensus amongst teachers that it is low level disruption; (name calling, swearing, not paying attention, interrupting and fighting) which causes the greatest amount of stress. It is important to note that, although stress is acutely felt by teachers, the evidence from our own research on school self- evaluation shows that children not involved in such disruption are equally distressed, if not more so. Children and young people hate the fact that such disruption causes both boredom and frustration.

3. Up until 2002, when the NUT commissioned Warwick University to conduct a wide-ranging survey of teachers on pupil behaviour, it was clear that concerns about low level disruption had not altered since the publication of the Elton Report on Pupil Behaviour in 1989. Levels of such disruption had remained relatively constant.

4. What has changed since then are the nature and frequency of serious and violent behaviour.

5. The conclusion of the NUT’s 2008 follow-up study with Warwick University was that:

“Some of the more serious problems, including abuse, damage to property and threats by parents, were encountered by fewer teachers and schools in 2008 than in 2001. However, these teachers and schools suffered such problems, more severely than they had in 2001.”

6. A further analysis suggested that it was male teachers who experienced a greater impact of this kind of behaviour.

7. The Warwick University study showed that for the majority of schools, the number of significant and serious incidents of misbehaviour are reducing, whereas for the minority, they are getting worse. This has not been contested and, in fact, has been confirmed by conversations with secondary teachers.

8. Evidence from a separate Cambridge University study: ‘Teachers Under Pressure’ by Maurice Galton and John MacBeath (2008), came to the conclusion 4

that primary schools, compared to five years ago, were experiencing highly confrontational behaviour from a minority of children. Anecdotes recounted in the book included:

“The mother, who with great effort, has now succeeded in getting her five year old to bed at 1.00 a.m. instead of 3.00 a.m.; and

a six year old who told his teacher how to go about killing pimps and prostitutes after mastering the Grand Theft Auto, in which the player has to kill as many people as possible.”

9. Galton’s and MacBeath’s conclusion was, that in primary schools:

“the prevalence and significance of such anecdotes is the contrast they present with (primary) teachers’ accounts five years previously. Although, at that time, some teachers did refer to behavioural problems, it was generally a reference to an insufficiently motivating curriculum for less-abled children. Revisiting the same schools and often the same teachers in 2007, there appeared to have been a significant and inimical impact on school life from a rapidly changing social scene. Motivating certain children, it was claimed, have become more difficult because, by the time they came to school, many of these children have become experts in manipulating adults.”

10. These are powerful conclusions. Conducting research for the book ‘Re-inventing Schools’, which I have written with Galton and MacBeath and which will be published in September, I have found that primary teachers concur with these findings.

11. I had one fascinating conversation during the research process with a teacher who believed that the ‘Every Child Matters Agenda’ was now leading a small minority of parents to think that schools now had overall responsibility for their children’s behaviour, health and wellbeing and that it was schools who had the responsibility if their children’s behaviour was unacceptable.

12. My belief is that teachers in both primary and secondary schools are now the best equipped that they have ever been to deal with poor behaviour but that this is still not enough, despite many teacher training courses equipping student teachers far better than they used to in terms of providing practical guidance and a range of techniques and ideas. The behaviour of a minority group of unsocialised pupils was very bad and getting worse.

13. How to equip teachers to tackle unacceptable pupil behaviour is a major issue. The evidence from our studies is that the amount of professional development for teachers on classroom organisation of pupil behaviour has increased but that the amount of excellent professional development since the beginning of the decade has not increased. Despite the effectiveness of the previous government’s SEAL programme.

14. Teacher organisations such as the NUT are probably the best at providing high quality and relevant professional development in pupil behaviour. It is clear that it 5

is not just young teachers or teachers new to the profession that need professional development in pupil behaviour, it is experienced teachers. Those that attend the NUT ‘s Professional Development Programme on pupil behaviour can take part in a wide range of courses, including courses on conflict resolution and transactional analysis, as well as those giving direct practical advice on classroom organisation.

15. I am convinced that the Department should turn to teacher organisations when developing a professional development entitlement on pupil behaviour for all teachers. The NUT’s experience in terms of delivering high quality programmes which genuinely enable teachers to do a better job is far in advance of the vast majority of private providers.

16. Schools that have fewer behaviour problems are those where all staff are utterly consistent in their relationships with pupils and where the behaviour policy is owned and understood by all staff. The most effective staff are staff trained in responding to a broad range of behaviours. The Steer Report contained many sensible and positive recommendations. However, there are a number of areas, in my view, which need developing.

17. In that context, I firmly believe that no government since the early 70s has had a strategy for the teaching profession. Part of that strategy should be the development of a comprehensive entitlement to professional development; and within that a major focus on pupil behaviour. In exit interviews we have conducted with teachers leaving the profession, it was quite clear that it was unacceptable pupil behaviour which was “the last straw that broke the camel’s back”. Teachers could just about put up with external pressure and stress caused by demands that they could not see the sense in but, if well prepared lessons were regularly disrupted by unacceptable behaviour, then that provided the trigger for resignation. I believe it is vital, therefore, that the Government establishes an entitlement to professional development in pupil behaviour throughout every teacher’s career.

18. The debate around pupil restraint is, again, becoming highly confused. In 1996, I led the discussions with Gillian Shephard, who was then Secretary of State, on securing much needed protection for teachers who restrained pupils. It was understood then that the protections for teachers set out in the 1996 Education Act were purely passive, e.g., that teachers were not expected to change their practice but that they were now protected by law in using restraint within the criteria set out in legislation. Post 1996 they could restrain a child from running out of the room, for example, without the anxiety that they might be accused of abusing that pupil. This understanding did not reach many schools and local authorities and it is still patchy.

19. The myth that has also grown up over the years is that pupil restraint is somehow a disciplinary action. Restraint is not a disciplinary action; it is there to protect both teacher and pupil.

20. For most teachers, restraining pupils is a relatively rare action but if a child, for example, does get very angry with another child and ‘loses it’, most teachers will intervene to separate those pupils.

21. I have become convinced over the years that Gillian Shephard’s very necessary inclusion of the restraint clauses of the 1996 Act needed to be accompanied by training in how to restrain. The availability of good training is again patchy and needs fundamental improvement in availability. Teachers, themselves, need to be asked whether or not they feel they would benefit from such training.

22. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about removing the permitted categories for searching pupils. Allowing pupils to be searched for weapons, drugs or stolen goods but not, for example, for an irritating and concealed electrical device, represented an arbitrary distinction.

23. How schools prevent the circulation of both illegal items and unwanted legal items must rest with head teachers’ decisions but one thing is clear: from time-to- time, schools may need to adopt additional and expensive security measures. A pot of money should be made available to schools which need to make emergency bids for additional security equipment. My preference would be for local authorities to hold that pot since they are in the best position to hold the ring and know the nature of local threats.

24. The Committee asks about ways of engaging parents and careers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour. I do think that training and counselling for parenthood is vital and should be an option available for parents who are experiencing difficulties with their children. There certainly should be confidential counselling available for parents that need it, particularly for parents who are worried about their children’s activities outside school.

25. I am not convinced that the Children’s Services model works, particularly in relation to pupil behaviour. Schools, above all, need contact points with the local authority if they are worried about the social, emotional and behavioural aspects of their pupils’ behaviour. They need single contacts who they know are people who have sufficient clout to can take effective action if necessary. This is patently not the case with a very large number of local authorities.

26. I think very many behaviour partnerships work very well but the insertion of the requirement on local authorities to establish Children’s Trusts for schools, both to report to those trusts and establish partnerships, is a legal step too far. Where, perhaps, I would disagree with the Coalition Government, is on what the local authority role should be. I believe the local authority has a crucial role for all schools. It can provide essential guidance and a safety net for schools faced with out-of-control pupils. They should bring together and broker expertise for schools to access and use. Special schools and Pupil Referral Units, alongside experienced teachers in mainstream schools, are a vital and often underused resource for other schools. I believe it is vital that alternative provision such as special schools and PRUs should continue. If there is one requirement that perhaps needs to be made; it is that mainstream schools should be linked with special schools and PRUs.

27. With respect to pupil exclusions, the Secretary of State has announced his intention to abolish independent appeals tribunals. While I think he is right to say that such tribunals have sometimes taken counter-intuitive decisions, abolition is not the answer. The fact remains that it is better for a school to face the decision of a tribunal rather than the decision of a judge in a judicial review. Instead, I 7

28. Unacceptable pupil behaviour touches at the core of teachers’ sense of self- efficacy. The Government is right to focus on pupil behaviour as an issue – it also needs to keep an open mind.

August 2010

Memorandum submitted by Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

Introduction

1. The Zacchaeus 2000 Trust (Z2K) works with the most vulnerable citizens when they have rent and council tax arrears, threats of eviction and the bailiffs, or are struggling with overpayments of tax credits and benefits. We only work “below the radar” while normally passing mortgage and credit card debts to other advisers. We employ three full time lawyers, an administrator and have 32 volunteers who act as McKenzie Friends helping vulnerable debtors to engage with the courts and with the authorities delivering welfare. At any one time we are handling about 70 cases, which are referred to us by MPs, GPs in Tottenham, other NGOs and satisfied clients. Both the number of cases and the volunteers are growing in number. The trust was founded in the early 1990s and registered as a charity in 1997. 2. Over the years we have noted that the Department of Health will not consider the consequences of poverty incomes for the health service, the Department of Work and Pensions will not consider the consequences for the health service of poverty incomes. Department of Education suffers the consequences of poverty related ill health, particularly of women of child bearing age, in the behaviour and discipline of many children in schools. The toxic connection between poverty, debt, ill health and educational underachievement falls into a black hole between government departments. 3. Poverty level welfare will be cut by slowing the increase in the levels of unemployment benefits using the less generous Consumer Price Index rather than Index of Retail Prices, a difference of about 2%, child benefit will be frozen, and housing benefit will be capped, the Health in Pregnancy and the Sure Start Maternity Grants are to be abolished; the expensive consequences of cutting poverty level incomes in ill health and educational underachievement have been ignored. 4. We submit that the behaviour and discipline of children in schools is worsened by circumstances over which parents have little or no control. We ask the Education Committee to take into account a. the effect of poverty coupled with debt on the mental health of parents and children, b. of poor maternal nutrition before and during pregnancy and its effect on the cognitive development of their offspring, c. the consequences of overcrowded housing and d. the potential damage to education of the housing benefit caps. e. the disruption of children’s education by insecure tenancies. This is a shortened version of our submission to the Cabinet Committee on Public Health and The DWP consultation “21st Century Welfare”, entitled Public Health and Welfare Reform. 5. The King’s Fund Estimates that the total cost the economy of mental illness is £77 billion a year (announced by Dr Jo Nurse, Head of Mental Health Services at 9 the NHS). Unless both the unemployed and the working poor receive the minimum incomes needed for healthy living these costs will continue to increase for the tax payers regardless of the system which delivers welfare. 6. We have selected items from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation minimum income standards (MIS) published in July at April 2010 prices which exclude rent, council tax, child care and social and cultural participation. The food budget is based in the science of nutrition, tested for consumer acceptability and priced in a supermarket. All items in the budget are there because members of the public think they ought to be in a minimum income standard. Table 1 Couple with two children Incomes from which rent arrears will be enforced when HB is capped JSA 235.29 Less MIS Food ‐107.13 Clothing ‐29.58 Water ‐5.70 Fuel ‐20.09 Household goods ‐18.96 Household services ‐9.81 Personal goods and ‐29.20 services Travel costs ‐38.38 JSA Shortfall ‐23.56

7. Women of child bearing age, and their offspring are the people who suffer the consequences of poverty level incomes. 7.5 million adults received incomes below the poverty threshold measured against 60% of the median income. It is many more than 7.5 million measured against an estimate of the weekly costs of human need, and the repayment of inevitable debts is taken into account. We highlight the consequences of the housing benefit cap because it will increase costs in health, education and the economy at large due to the well established relationship between debt and mental illness. 8. It should be noted that these people will not have a holiday; the costs of any kind of social life are not included above although they are included in the JRF minimum income standard at £42 a week for an individual and £104 a week for the family because the public thinks they should be. They will certainly be paying off debts. Sometimes the level of debts is so bad due to the complexities of welfare delivery that people are literally unable to buy food. Z2K has a small fund to provide them with temporary support beyond the scope of statutory welfare. Food prices are increasing while benefits are being cut.

Case History The Y family was homeless, in the sense of having no settled accommodation for 2.5 years. They applied to Westminster for help with their homelessness in May 2009 and eventually were able to move into appropriate accommodation in April 2010 because of the help in arranging a deposit provided by Hackney SS. Westminster provided no 10 help whatsoever despite there being 4 relevant children to whom Westminster owed a duty under the Children Act. The family members have suffered appalling stress through living in overcrowded accommodation and then, when in temporary accommodation being under continuous threat of imminent eviction. Mr Y suffers from psoriasis, a condition aggravated by stress and Mrs Y has problems with her heart, these medical conditions were made known to Westminster who took no notice. Without the intervention of Z2K this family would have been literally on the streets. There situation remain precarious because they cannot really afford the only accommodation they could find. The rent is £1800 p.m. and the Local Housing Allowance for 4 bedrooms in that area is £1495, leaving them having to pay £305 pm above their housing benefit and they are very worried about getting into arrears again as Mr Y is on a very low income”. 9. A longitudinal survey of new public housing tenants in Brisbane, (Kahn and Phibbs 2005) about 50 percent of parents reported improved educational performance and motivation of their children after their housing situation had stabilised, and only 10 percent reported a decrease in performance or motivation. The impact of mobility is a significant issue in this regard. It showed clearly that when families moved from insecure private rented accommodation to more secure public rented homes there was a significant improvement in children’s progress at school and in their behaviour. It is now proposed that council housing in the UK should become insecure in order to move other tenants in from insecure temporary private accommodation; that way all children in the UK needing council housing will have thwarted education and worse behaviour. 10. The housing benefit caps will result in rent being paid out of poverty income, both in and out of work, which cannot be reduced without further damaging the health and wellbeing of tenants and the education of their children. Rent arrears and evictions, and the stress and depression that goes with them, are inevitable, for the whole family. During the recent debate about cancelling free milk issue was not whether or not all families should be given free milk but whether milk, along with other essential nutrition and necessities, can be bought by the families required to survive on statutory minimum incomes in or out of work.

11. Steve Webb MP, said in a Child Poverty Bill debate on minimum income standards about the total inadequacy of adult unemployment benefits, and the effect on children of the consequent poor maternal nutrition before and during pregnancy, “When we heard evidence, it was pointed out that a young woman under 25 is allocated £50.95 a week (Now £51.85 ‐ PN) to live on, but evidence suggests that £43 (Now £44.34 – PN) a week is needed for food for a decent, healthy living standard. Fuel and other bills cannot be paid from the remaining £7‐odd, so young women in that age group who are on benefit are, by definition, eating less than is healthy for them. If they then become pregnant, they will at that time have been eating unhealthily. Budget standards and minimum income standards would enable us to consider what such young women need for a decent standard of living, and to make that the 11 benchmark. Fiscal considerations would determine whether we hit the benchmark, but not knowing what the benchmark is unacceptable and inexcusable.” Hansard clmn 363 November 3rd 2009. 12. Professor Michael Crawford, contributing to this consultation, has written to us. “The brain evolved in the sea 500‐600 million years ago using specific marine omega 3 fatty acids for its structures and function. It still uses the same today. It is difficult to obtain from land resources other than in poultry, eggs and small animals. Intensive rearing of poultry with inadequate feeding means that today it is no longer a good source. Over 14,000 pregnancies were recruited in the Avon region. Detailed information about education, incomes, housing, etc etc and nutrition was collected. 8 years after birth, the children were studied. Controlling for some 28 confounding factors revealed that Verbal IQ, Fine motor function, Prosocial Score and Social Development scores were strongly correlated with the maternal sea food consumption in pregnancy. That is the children born to the mothers who ate the least amount or none were those with the worst behavioural outcomes, The rise in brain disorders and mental ill health is also reckoned by Capt Dr Joseph Hibbeln at the National Institutes of Health USA, to be mostly amongst children. This was predicted in 1972 by the UK Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition to happen unless attention was given to this matter. Nothing has been done to educate children in the schools about a healthy diet, the importance of sea food and how to cook it nor about ensuring women of child bearing age have enough income to buy a healthy diet. 13. The first recommendation of Professor Michael Marmot, in his review of health inequalities was; Support families to achieve progressive improvements in early child development, including: Giving priority to pre‐ and post‐natal interventions that reduce adverse outcomes of pregnancy and infancy. And the fourth group of policy recommendations were. a. Develop and implement standards for minimum income for healthy living. b. Remove ‘cliff edges’ for those moving in and out of work and improve flexibility of employment. c. Review and implement systems of taxation, benefits, pensions and tax credits to provide a minimum income for healthy living standards and pathways for moving upwards. 14. Professor Peter Ambrose, Visiting Professor of Housing Studies at the University of Brighton, writes to us as follows. " Circle Anglia recently calculated the cost to the economy in terms of labour immobility deriving from lack of affordable housing as £542 million per year. In addition there are serious consequences for health and wellbeing outcomes. When housing costs take too much a share of household incomes the then people either depend on housing benefit ‐ which costs the country £21 billion per year and complicates the 12 transition into work ‐ or suffer reduced expenditure on key items to protect health such as adequate nutrition, recreational activity, community participation and indoor warmth. Limiting the housing benefit will increase debt, and consequent mental illness which is exacerbated when rent arrears, and other debts, are enforced against poverty incomes. It is particularly important to note the connection which has been made between debt and mental illness. 15. The Government Office for Science stated in its report “Mental Capital and Wellbeing; Making the Most of ourselves in the 21st century” Pollard 2008, “There is a strong case for Government to work with financial organisations and utility companies to break the cycle between debt and mental illness. Recent research has indicated that debt is a much stronger risk factor for mental disorder than low income. A range of possible interventions are suggested: beginning with better training for teenagers in managing finance; greater awareness of the link between mental health and debt by banks and financial institutions; and measures by utility companies to handle arrears better.” 16. Based on the Government's own figures, the National Housing Federation estimates that cuts to housing benefit will leave around 936,000 people at risk of being driven into debt, falling into arrears or losing their home, with a high proportion at risk of ending up homeless. On average, people will lose out on £624 a year. The following letter was published by the Times on the 30th August 2010. 17. The Times Letters 30 August 2010. Bad housing policies in the past 30 years have led to an unjust system of benefits and a greater burden on the taxpayer Sir, The Institute of Fiscal Studies rightly decides that welfare cuts are regressive, (report, Aug 25, and letter, Aug 27) but the Government is concerned about the £21 billion annual cost of housing benefit to the taxpayer. The financial deregulations of the early 1980s allowed house purchase lending to spiral out of control, driving house prices to unprecedented levels, and with them rents, which reflect house prices and consequentially the annual cost of housing benefit. Simultaneously, the Housing Act 1988 allowed landlords to charge a market rent, allowing rents to spiral after January 15, 1989. This removed rent controls from the Rent Act 1977 scheme, again increasing housing benefit and the cost to the taxpayer. None of this is the responsibility of housing benefit claimants, but they are being punished for the errors of successive governments by the requirement to pay the balance of rents out of means‐tested wages or unemployment benefits, or be threatened with eviction. The Local Housing Allowance began this policy of ignoring the means test when paying housing benefit; the cap continues it. These are the deeply unjust and regressive consequences of bad housing policies introduced by the 1979 government, allowed to continue by the 1997 government and then blamed on the most vulnerable members of society. 13 Peter Ambrose Professor in Housing and Health, University of Brighton Rev Paul Nicolson Chairman, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

18. We submit that the combination of poverty level incomes and rent arrears strengthens the risk factor for mental disorder and worsens the cycle between debt and mental illness; reducing such incomes with rent arrears due to the caps on housing benefit piles risks on risks. In our experience many claimants are already suffering the draconian enforcement of rent and council tax arrears by the local authorities and bailiffs and from consequent depression, in some cases to the point of breakdown; this inevitably affects children in a household. . 19. This enlarges our concerns about debt and mental illness in the UK of the Office for Science. They continued; “Common mental disorders affect 16% of the population and are affected by a wide range of issues such as employment, housing, urbanisation, exposure to crime, and debt. When policies are developed in areas such as these, there is a clear case for taking more account of the implications for mental health, as is generally the case for physical health and safety.” 20. Secure tenure is necessary to promote educational progress and good behaviour in schools, local extended families are essential for mutual support. That will be broken by forcing parents and grandparents out of their homes. This will erupt as a scandal into national media when repossession notices are issued and bailiffs begin to implement evictions. 21. Housing for large families is in even shorter supply than housing in general. Z2K serves a lone mother with eight children. The nine of them live in an overcrowded council house. The local authority will not move them or build on to the current three bed‐roomed house. Their education and their health is suffering. The only accommodation available would be private at rents over £400 a week; rent which will exclude the family from appropriate housing. 22. Professor Peter Ambrose, comments as follows. “Home overcrowding is producing ever‐increasing costs in terms of calls on the NHS, Social Services, the education and law and order systems and in human misery. Shelter data show that overcrowding has got significantly worse over the past five years and it continues to worsen as the shortage of genuinely affordable rented homes gets more acute. The 2009 London Citizens report 'Housing our Future' by Ambrose and Farrell uncovered the extent of over‐crowding among a sample of primary school children at four schools in Wandsworth and by means of surveys and other enquiries assessed the adverse effects on the children. These effects were judged by over 60% of the parents to be harming their children's educational and social progress in six different ways. Both teachers and parents also commented on some adverse behavioural outcomes. Under‐investment in housing is producing some very regressive effects and adding seriously to a range of public sector costs.” 14 23. Governments’ have failed to take into account the consequential costs to the tax payer in the hospitals, the schools and in the enforcement of debts and in the economy at large of poverty related mental and physical ill health, educational underachievement and crime. Unless both the unemployed and the working poor receive the minimum incomes needed for healthy living, and secure tenures are included in housing policies, these costs will continue to increase for the tax payers regardless of the system which delivers welfare.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Alison Peacock, Cambridge Primary Review and The Wroxham Primary School, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire

Introduction

Alison Peacock is head teacher of an internationally acclaimed primary school that she has transformed from special measures to outstanding within three years. She is also a National Leader in Education at the National College. From September 2010 she combines these roles with that of Leader of the Cambridge Primary Review Network, a two-year extension of the Review’s activities, supported by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, which will support and disseminate the work of schools which are building on the Review’s findings and proposals. Quotations from the Review’s final report, published in October 2009 (Alexander 2010), appear below in italics.

Executive summary

Behaviour and discipline cannot be separated from curriculum, pedagogy and school ethos. School should be a place where children and families quickly learn that they will be respected and understood. The term ‘discipline’ implies externally enforced compliance. An infinitely preferable scenario is one where young people are intrinsically motivated to learn and interact effectively within a respectful peaceful community that is nevertheless responsive, vibrant and full of life. This document seeks to offer examples of actions that lead to highly effective engagement, instead of disaffection and exclusion.

This submission addresses the points requested by the Education Committee in order. Quotes from the findings of the Cambridge Primary Review published in Children, their World, their Education (Alexander (Ed), 2010) are in italics.

1 How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools When I took over headship of a one form entry primary school in Hertfordshire it had been in special measures for two years. A member of the 2001 Ofsted team described the children in one class as ‘unteachable’ due to their poor behaviour. This submission seeks to illustrate the effectiveness of strategies that the new leadership team put in place from 2003 onwards enabling dramatic school improvement.

1.1 High quality teaching and school leadership The Cambridge Primary Review strongly supports the view of Sir Alan Steer’s group on pupil behaviour that ‘the quality of teaching, learning and behaviour are inseparable’ and the principle that the management of behaviour and the management of learning should be aligned and consistent (p496)

Excellent behaviour and high quality teaching are inextricably linked. Strong leadership in our school has meant that teachers understand the importance of planning and assessing each lesson rigorously in order that no child feels left out, confused or under challenged. Children at our school are not labelled by ability but are offered the constant expectation that they will seek to challenge themselves through self selection from a range of tasks. This is a demanding process that requires careful decision making on the part of every child. Ranking has been 16

replaced by an approach to learning that is challenging but rewarding in all areas of school life.

Children from Lower Foundation upwards are enabled to develop independence in order that they can learn and co-operate within the school community as effectively as possible. High staffing levels and close involvement of family and volunteer helpers throughout the school ensures that children’s learning can be supported and extended in all areas of the curriculum.

We rapidly found that poor behaviour reduced in classes where children knew that they were respected, valued and noticed as individuals. These classes had teachers who knew the importance of engaging in dialogue with children and who provided consistent high expectations of every child. Inequality within and between groups of children has reduced, leading to standards of behaviour, achievement and attainment that are outstanding (Ofsted 2006, 2009)

Strong principled leadership of the school ensures clarity of vision and purpose.

1.2 Creating a listening school Children’s responses to the Cambridge Primary Review were often very upbeat. Whatever was happening in the wider world, children were seen to be spending their school days in ‘communities-within-communities’ that unfailingly sought to celebrate the positive. (p56)

Children should be actively engaged in decisions which affect their education, and attention to ‘children’s voices’ should never be tokenistic. (p489)

Within my first term of headship we set up a whole school approach to democracy. Through mixed aged meeting groups all children (Y1 – Y6) and adults meet on a weekly basis for fifteen minutes to discuss whole school issues. The mixed aged meetings increased tolerance and understanding between children on the playground very quickly. Children suggested play activities that they would enjoy and adult supervision changed from a passive monitoring role to one of active play leadership. Discussions and decisions about whole school policies regarding issues such as bullying and individual difference are debated within these meetings. This forum ensures that decision making about issues that effect everyone provide a microcosm of the ‘big society’ initiative.

1.3 Intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation – reducing the desire to act out. The key to achieving outstanding behaviour in and around our school has been for children and adults to reflect upon their actions in the light of the values-led community of which they are an important part.

A model of behaviour management that relies upon fear in order to ensure compliance is a model that is subject to collapse as soon as external constraints are relaxed. Self regulated behaviour intrinsically motivated by a desire to participate, learn and belong is infinitely preferable. Children respond very positively to routine and boundaries. They also delight in being trusted and respected within those boundaries. Our mission statement is ‘working together, aiming high’. This statement was agreed by the children and staff and reflects our strong emphasis on high standards in all curriculum subjects and the importance of team work. 17

1.4 Friendship mentors What is beyond dispute is that children’s emotional development matters. p231

We have employed qualified counselling staff who are available for children to meet with to discuss concerns about school or home. Staff employed by the school liaise closely with our Inclusion Leader and the Family Support Worker currently employed through the Extended Schools consortium. In the same way that children cannot learn and co operate effectively if they are hungry, they are unable to participate within class if they are angry or upset.

1.5 Peer mediation Year Six children are trained in peer mediation and they operate a rota system at lunchtimes for younger children. We have provided a quiet room where children can go if they are upset or angry. Teaching staff manage this process. Children learn how to support each other and develop empathy skills. All children and staff from Year One upwards, attend weekly mixed age meetings. This whole school process operates instead of a school council. The meetings are brief (fifteen minutes only) but are regular and effective.

1.6 Conflict resolution Ongoing disputes between individual children are often resolved through conflict resolution sessions which are led by trained teachers and support staff.

2 The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools and the impact upon schools and their staff The Cambridge Primary Review encountered considerable concern about children’s behaviour in schools and classrooms. It also found no clear agreement on the causes, though social trends, poor parenting and the performance culture were all frequently blamed. However, public and political discussion of the problem tends to focus on rules rather than relationships, detaching behaviour from learning, and replacing interaction through which pupils learn to think for themselves by directives which expect them to replicate the thinking of others. (p496)

The nature of challenging behaviour that I experienced in the first years of headship at my school, included incidents of individual children throwing furniture and other objects, children running off site, punching and kicking between children, physical assaults and verbal abuse of staff, racial and gender intolerance and abuse. On the whole, these were isolated extreme incidents. Insidious ‘low level’ poor behaviour was closely linked with refusal to engage and peer pressure to exhibit disinterest and passivity within the classroom. This atmosphere of apathy amongst the children was most noticeable in KS2 where to show any evidence of interest in learning was to be derisively labelled a ‘boffin’ by peers.

Development of high quality subject teaching within a coherently planned curriculum rapidly ensured that learning became irresistible for almost every child.

2.1 Shared whole school responsibility There is greater awareness of bullying in schools and greater understanding of how to deal with it. Seventy per cent of 10 to 15 year olds reported in 2007 that they had never been bullied and nearly 60 per cent believed that their schools dealt well with bullying issues. (p54)

Disruptive behaviour, however minor, is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. Behaviour management is a whole school issue which requires consistent leadership.

2.2 Record keeping and follow up Any incidents of unacceptable behaviour are recorded by staff on a shared format and copies are given to the class teacher, Inclusion Leader and headteacher. This ensures that all incidents are noted and followed up, whilst maximising communication. Behaviour incidents are recorded on a spreadsheet which enables analysis of victims and perpetrators. This rigorous approach ensures that no child can ‘slip through the net’. Children who report behaviour as victims may tell a wide range of different adults within the average school setting over a period of weeks. Our system of monitoring ensures that all complaints from children are noticed and any emerging pattern of bullying behaviour can be seen and followed up quickly.

Confidential memos are sent to teaching staff naming children who have been victims and includes any perpetrators who we need to ‘catch being good’.

3 Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed term and permanent exclusions

Working closely with parents and families is a key priority for our school. We aim never to judge parents and do not seek to blame them if their child finds school life challenging. Our success in minimising extreme incidents of behaviour has often been achieved by building strong supportive relationships with families. In my early days of headship the behaviour of the parents whose children were acting out was often far more challenging than that of their offspring.

We have rarely needed to resort to fixed term exclusions. However, there have been occasions when the opportunity to do so has provided a much needed ‘breathing space’ for the school.

Our local network of primary and secondary schools meets regularly. This group enables more experienced leaders and teachers to support others and also provides a forum for debate about town wide issues such as ways of supporting disadvantaged children and families.

The Local Authority Behaviour Support team provide a useful sounding board and offer short term intervention programmes.

4 Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour True partnership cannot flourish where respect and power are not equal (p81)

Traveller representatives said that they and their children faced discrimination, bullying and segregation, both inside and outside school. (p399)

The Review’s national soundings stressed the need for services to listen to marginalised groups and for teachers to be trained in how to work with them (p399)

4.1 Working in partnership Partnership between our school and families is something we work very hard to achieve. Home visits take place when children start school and we share assessment observations regularly through learning profiles. We meet at least termly with all families to discuss the progress of their child. Wherever possible, children attend and lead these meetings. In Years 4, 5 and 6 children prepare powerpoint slides highlighting their key areas of success and challenge for presentation and discussion at family consultation meetings. This high quality interaction promotes trust between school and home with the aim being for the adults to work together as effectively as possible to support the needs of the child. If a child is finding an aspect of their behaviour difficult to control they will share their strategies during the meeting. This ‘no blame’ approach allows for maximum creativity in management and reduces barriers between the school and community.

4.2 Family support Some submissions to the Review commented that referral to outside agencies stigmatised families experiencing difficulties (p398)

One way to reduce stigma is to make public services as universal and as easily accessible as possible (p398)

5 How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline Acceptance of the basic rights and principles of inclusion has not always been matched by appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes’ (p490) The Cambridge Primary Review recommended that there should be ‘a full SEN review’ to include ‘proper debate on the meaning and practicality of inclusive education (p 490)

Behaviour support teams should be skilled at supporting schools in recognising patterns of behaviour.

5.1 SEND recognition should be an intrinsic part of personalised learning Every child in our school is valued as an individual. Where difficult behaviour is linked to SEND every effort is made by the school to recognise this. Disruptive behaviour is best avoided by minimising potential triggers, alleviating potential areas of anxiety, providing alternative spaces (such as a quiet zone or sensory calming room) in order that the child can control his behaviour with dignity.

6 The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour We almost never exclude a child from our school and on the rare occasions that we have done so it has been for a very brief amount of time. My concern is that when children are excluded in my local authority there is a paucity of provision for the children and their family. This is particularly the case when the exclusion is permanent and especially where the child is very young.

7 Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

My experience as a headteacher is that children with the most challenging behaviour tend to attend very regularly.

8 The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers as announced by the Department on 7 July.

As a primary school we would never issue detention outside school hours and would always liaise very closely with families if a child was causing us concern. We have transformed the behaviour of children in our school without the need for the measures announced by the DfE on 7th July 2010.

Summary

The message is clear: expect more, teach better, and children will respond (p99)

Every child should be entitled to learn in an environment where he is safe and has the freedom to express himself as an individual, but where clear boundaries exist to enable the highest quality education to take place for everyone. High quality educational experience occurs in schools where teachers offer an outstanding curriculum that is challenging, meaningful and inclusive.

September 2010

References Alexander, R.J. (ed) (2010) Children, their World, their Education: final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review, Abingdon: Routledge.

Alexander, R.J. with Doddington, C., Gray, J., Hargreaves, L. and Kershner, R. (eds) (2010) The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys, Abingdon: Routledge.

Memorandum submitted by Professor Stephen Gorard

Encouraging attendance and positive behaviour in schools: a summary of a series of international studies of pupil views

1. Introduction

1.1 It is likely that the current call for evidence will produce many valuable submissions on effective and less effective approaches to dealing with challenging behaviour. But there is also a concern that these approaches will tend to take the nature of existing schooling somewhat for granted, seeking solutions for pupils deemed problematic rather than for the system more generally. Of course, such solutions will be necessary and important. However, what I hope to do in this brief summary (supported by reference to more formal research reports1) is suggest some further plausible, inexpensive and easy-to-engineer ways of encouraging greater engagement with school, by modifying the experiences of pupils at schools in line with their own suggestions. The suggestions come from a series of national and international studies of pupil voice, conducted with around 20,000 young people aged 14 to 15.

2. Enjoyment of school

2.1 Only around half of the young people at school in England report enjoying being at school or finding lessons interesting. Yet enjoyment of learning is an important part of engagement and educational aspiration. It would be relatively easy, according to pupils themselves, to increase overall levels of enjoyment and this would encourage attendance, focus and good behaviour more generally. Of course enhancing enjoyment is not a panacea, but it would inexpensive and presumably a desirable outcome anyway.

2.2 Enhancing enjoyment of school and interest in lessons may be easy, because the patterning and stratification of school opportunities and outcomes that hinder traditional school improvement work do not appear very strongly here. There is little difference according to student family background (such as eligibility for free school meals). Perhaps most importantly, reported prior attainment at Key Stage 3 seems completely unrelated to enjoyment at KS4, suggesting that interest in lessons is not the disproportionate preserve of high attainers. Similarly unrelated is the kind of school attended, its intake and geographical location, its academic standing, its curriculum offer, and the staff priorities as reported by teachers. In traditional parlance we could say that there is no school effect on enjoyment as an outcome, since the variation in individual enjoyment explained by school-level measures is almost zero. This is a quite remarkable finding. It means that any attempt to enhance enjoyment for all does not need to face those structural and socio-economic barriers that school improvers usually face. It would also be relatively cheap, since it does not of itself require new buildings, extra teachers, or different kinds of schools. Students can be ‘objectively’ disadvantaged, in terms of challenges to their learning or a

1 Not published on the Committee’s website. 22

deprived economic background, and still enjoy learning. Indeed, providing a shelter from the impact of disadvantage is one of the main reasons for having and supporting a state-funded education system.

2.3 The clear majority of patterning in reports of enjoyment relates to individual student experiences of education. Students enjoy variety of delivery in lessons, not because of the weakly-founded but fashionable notion that students may differ in some kind of preferred learning style but because lessons should be more than information delivery. They can be exciting and inspiring. They can be fun. Practical work, role-playing, visits, and especially real discussions are desired by most students, but these cannot be provided in a uniform and dull way. It is perhaps the enthusiasm behind the existing variety, as much as any formula, that is attractive. Students as well as teachers demand respect, and appreciate autonomy in their approach to learning. The students are the ones who will learn (or not) and so control of this learning, assisted by teachers, is fundamental to them. Having enough chances for discussion, learning in small groups, and variation in lesson delivery are positively related to the experience at school. Students find lessons interesting, enjoy education more generally, and report having enough of a say in their own education, when the classes are small, they can discuss their ideas in class, the teachers are appropriately specialist, and there is variation in delivery and activity. The same kinds of outcomes are also positively associated with students reporting contact with students on other courses or programmes (which might refer to social or pastoral activities, learning off- site, or to vertical organisations such as houses and competitions, or simply a small institution).

2.4 All of this may sound obvious and simple but it has been observed that is is often the students who report the most serious problems at school who have the poorest relationships with teachers anyway. More generally, not all teachers are routinely open to suggestions for improvement that come from their students, and school organisation is sometimes not conducive to creating a supportive community for students. Partly this is based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of equity in schools. The criteria for judging fair and appropriate behaviour for both students and teachers in any context are complex. ‘Equity’ is difficult to define, but it perhaps represents that sense of fairness which underlies decisions about whether any specific principle of justice, such as equal treatment or equal opportunity, applies in any given context. Put simply, it is an internal template forming part of how we know something is fair. There is usually considerable agreement about what is fair and what is unfair, and problems arise largely when one principle is used inadvertently in the wrong kind of context. An example of equity in classroom interactions is represented by teachers’ respect for all students’ opinions, even when they might disagree with one or more of them. Encouraging the ideas, arguments and evidence advanced by students encourages learning as much as disagreement does. Respect for the individual despite a difference of opinion, and even where the student ideas are demonstrably incorrect or facile to the more sophisticated teacher, may encourage a sense of personal autonomy and self-worth in the young person. It, therefore, influences the student’s self-perceived position in social interactions, particularly vis a vis figures of authority. There is widespread agreement among all young people that students should be treated with respect by teachers, and their opinions should be valued. Denying that respect, where it occurs, is an error of context by teachers because respect is a threshold or universal principle. On the other hand, rewarding effort or good work, 23

punishing poor behaviour, and even reprimanding students for the abuse of others, are all examples of contexts where differentiation is possible and expected. Denying respect differentially is as bad a mistake as reprimanding universally would be, but it appears much more frequently in pupil accounts.

2.5 The importance of this is that where schools are seen by students as co-operative ventures, enjoyment is more widespread. Enhancing enjoyment of school through consideration of better and more consistent student: teacher relations may have an impact on learning, behaviour and attendance. But this is not to suggest that enjoyment of and interest in school are important primarily because they will help yield higher attainment. This lack of concern for enjoyment as an outcome sui generis is quite widespread in policy documents, and in the relevant research literature. Both the 14-19 Reforms in England and the new Foundation Phase in Wales have suggested that a key reason to enhance enjoyment is so that attainment (and perhaps participation) is increased. Enjoyment is apparently not enough for its own sake. Yet, enjoyment of life in school is clearly a good thing, even if it leads to no greater attainment. It would probably also have an impact on young peoples’ lives outside and beyond school, and on their developing sense of what is appropriate and normal in wider society. It will almost certainly help produce generations of adults less wary of formal education and training in their future lives.

3. Injustice in schools

3.1 School experiences are part of a determining sequence in the creation or entrenchment of pupils’ views on what a fair world would be like and whether a fair world is possible. Interactional justice at school has long-term beneficial and not so beneficial impacts. Young people are influenced by their life at school, and learn to trust others partly as a consequence of how trustworthy others have appeared to be so far in their lives, for example. Experience at school is strongly related to feelings of trust about people more generally. Those for whom school was fair, and their teachers were just, were nearly twice as likely as others to report trusting the government of their country and most people in general. It seems possible that pupils’ experience of school contributes to their image of what wider society will be like. If so, teachers, leaders and policy-makers have a direct responsibility to assist pupils in making positive but appropriately critical judgements. Note that this is not primarily a pedagogical or curriculum issue. Pupils learn about what society is like through their lives at school. Put simply, there is little point in overtly teaching that people can be trusted if pupils are not trusted in schools, and teachers do not behave according to what pupils see as widespread principles of justice.

3.2 Of course, whether the actual outcomes discussed are desirable is a debatable issue. Perhaps it is not that young people should learn to trust people, rather than that they should learn who they can trust. The point is that whatever the outcomes are, these kinds of issues are partly related to experiences of education beyond the formal curriculum. This is presumably hardly surprising, but what is suggested by this new evidence is that pupils have a generally consistent model of fairness, using the apparently contradictory principles in different settings, and that they learn about unfairness partly through inconsistent application of these principles by their teachers. Positive school experiences and relationships with teachers are associated with a 24

lower likelihood of agreeing to violence and deception, whereas negative experiences are linked to the more ‘negative’ view in traditional terms. These positive experiences are almost exclusively about teachers and the principles of justice that they apply to routine school events like teachers explaining topics well and getting on with their pupils. It is reasonable to suggest that teachers have a role in discouraging agreement with violence and deception not just by teaching about it, and not just by displaying their beliefs about violence in their work. Most countries have abolished corporal punishment anyway. Teachers can encourage more positive beliefs about these wider social issues merely by illustrating through their normal everyday teaching behaviour that a just world is possible.

3.3 It is quite clear that pupils’ willingness for others to receive help, their trust in people both at school and more widely, their experience of school as fair, and their views on violence and topical issues such as the integration of recent immigrants, among others, are all influenced by their experiences of schooling. Insofar as we are able to prefer one of the outcomes in any of these areas (such as that pupils express a willingness to help others, rather than not help), then the more ‘positive’ outcomes are mostly encouraged by:

• appropriate teacher respect for all pupils and their opinions • teachers allowing pupils the autonomy to work at their own speed • teachers using discrimination only in its proper domains • and lack of abuse at the hands of other pupils

3.4 Those pupils treated best at school tend to have the most positive outlook on trust, civic values and sense of justice. And vice versa. The worst reported incidents at school, both in pupil discussions and in the survey itself, came from the actions of other pupils in the form of social isolation, bullying, stealing and violence. As the evidence shows, teachers still have two ways in which they can take responsibility for these actions by other pupils. First, and most obviously, teachers must stamp these incidents out wherever they are encountered. Perhaps more significantly, teachers have a more general role in helping families and others in inhibiting such negative cycles of behaviour. Pupils who are prepared to condone lying and hitting another pupil are themselves influenced, at least to a small extent, by their experiences of justice in school.

3.5 An example of equity in classroom interactions is represented by teachers’ respect for their pupils’ opinions, even when they might disagree with the pupils. Disagreement is an important part of learning. Encouraging the ideas, arguments and evidence advanced by pupils, on the other hand, encourages learning. There is widespread agreement among all young people that all pupils should be treated with respect by teachers, their opinions should be valued, and that they should not be humiliated in any way. Few report that this takes place consistently, however. A common view was that teachers had pupils who were their favourites, that rewards and punishments were not always applied fairly, and that certain groups of pupils were treated less fairly than others. There is, therefore, a clear mismatch between what pupils want and what they experience, in many ways. This needs to be addressed urgently. Pupils want marks to reflect the quality of their work, or the effort they put in. Where necessary, they want punishments to be meted out consistently. Too many pupils report that this does not happen. Pupils do not want hard-working pupils to be 25

favoured (except in assessment terms). Most report that this does not happen. Pupils are happy for their assessed work to be discriminated in terms of quality and effort, but they complain that hard-working, high-attaining pupils should not otherwise be favoured by teachers. This is a clear and strict application of the principle of merit, and one which teachers are reported as widely misusing, by using it in the wrong settings.

3.6 Putting these views and experiences together, positive experiences of school tend to be associated with pupils having positive principles of justice at school, who are tolerant, sharing, and inclusive. Negative experiences of school tend to be associated with pupils who are prepared to tolerate and countenance these kinds of injustice at school. Those who had experienced teachers giving extra help to other pupils who were struggling were more likely to be in favour of extra help being given to others. Those who had been bullied or hurt at school were less in favour. In terms of agreeing, conditionally, that it is ‘ok’ (the term used in the English instrument) to hit someone who has been insulting or lie to avoid punishment, there is considerable variation related to past experiences. Those pupils reporting serious negative experiences of school such as being hurt by other pupils, and perhaps less serious but more chronic injustice at the hands of teachers, were considerably more likely to tolerate or even support hitting and lying in turn.

4. So what?

4.1 The similarities between the determinants of behaviour at school, enjoyment, aspiration, sense of justice, and hope for later life, are remarkable. They are not generally much stratified by pupil origin, nor is there any evidence of a school-level ‘effect’ even where pupils are educated away from mainstream settings. The chief influence reported here is interaction with teachers, and the lack of consistency in applying the principles of equity, while lack of enjoyment is further exacerbated by widespread reports of very poor pedagogic practice (further details are given in two papers edited for the Select Committee). So, much more emphasis needs to be given in initial teacher preparation to the principles of equity, the domains and combinations to which they apply, and the common dangers of applying the principles in the wrong domains. And these lessons need to be reinforced through the continuing development of good practice. A little awareness goes a long way here. For example, many otherwise good teachers would accept that respect for others is a universal principle but that justified discrimination, such as reward for effort, is not. Yet one of the most common complaints of pupils is that teachers actually forget this distinction, treating hard-working pupils differently from others in domains where such discrimination is not justified. Constant vigilance and rehearsal could be cheap, swift and all-embracing and might have significant impact on a range of behaviours from classroom interaction to subsequent participation. More prosaically, teachers have an obvious role in preventing the kinds of abuses that pupils report at the hands of other pupils (ranging from overt bullying to social isolation). Yet the accounts in this research suggest that some teachers are not generally managing this to the satisfaction of most pupils. None of this should detract from the good teaching that occurs and the enjoyment that many pupils report. But if only half of all pupils enjoy their time at school, something can and should be done to improve the situation.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by the National Union of Teachers (NUT)

1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Inquiry into Behaviour and Discipline in Schools.

2. The NUT believes that the professional judgement of teachers should be at the heart of teaching and learning. The approach of schools to pupil behaviour and the level of support given to teachers will determine whether or not schools are effective.

3. In its National Charter ‘Learning to Behave: A Charter for Schools’ the NUT set out proposals which, if adopted in schools, would encourage the promotion of good pupil behaviour and the reduction of behaviour which disrupts school life.

4. The NUT recognises the importance of no child being ‘written off’ and believes that neither teachers nor pupils should face dangers arising from unacceptable behaviour. It is important for teachers and schools to consider ways in which all pupils have access to an education which meets their needs.

5. This submission is accompanied by two NUT publications on behaviour: Pupil Behaviour: Advice, Guidance and Protection and Learning to Behave: A Charter for Schools.1

Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools

6. The school behaviour policy, which should be discussed by all members of the school community, especially staff and pupils and not just considered by Governors as a paper exercise, is of paramount importance to the effectiveness of behaviour management in schools. The NUT believes that a school behaviour policy must be a practical document which includes clear guidelines to staff on practice and procedures relating to any incidence of inappropriate behaviour within school. The policy should also make a clear commitment to regular professional development programmes for all staff on behaviour strategies both in child and adolescent development and about the application of behaviour management strategies.

7. The NUT believes that head teachers have a responsibility to provide continuous professional development (CPD) for their staff. CPD needs to cover behaviour management strategies and should focus on understanding child and adolescent development. A systematic approach by head teachers to facilitate the provision of behaviour related CPD can have a very positive impact as evidenced by the success of the NUT’s CPD programme. The programme’s behaviour courses, focusing on restorative justice, violence prevention and conflict resolution are always fully subscribed.

8. Research shows that in schools where teachers collaborate effectively they achieve better levels of behaviour.2

1 Not published on the Committee’s website. 28

9. The NUT believes that schools need sufficient time within the day to conduct 360 degree examinations of both the pupil and the situation when there is an incident relating to inappropriate pupil behaviour. In order to effectively carry out an investigation and find a resolution schools may require on-site trained counsellors. Necessary time within the school day should also be allocated for all staff to share information and experiences about the behaviour needs of individual pupils.

10. The NUT supports and advocates the approach of the Social and Emotional Approaches to Learning (SEAL) materials in schools as they aim to tackle the reasons for a pupil’s behaviour rather than their actions. For staff such an approach can create an environment in which social and emotional skills are enhanced to an extent where behaviour issues can be resolved through discussion and negotiation rather than punishment methods, physical restraint or as a last resort exclusion.

11. The NUT further advocates the use of positive parenting courses run by pupil and parent support advisors within schools as a way of improving behaviour through the development of a common home/school language and understanding of expectations.

The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

12. Unacceptable pupil behaviour, whether low level or extreme, is profoundly challenging for the staff and pupils who come into contact with it. It disrupts the continuity and consistency of teaching and damages teachers’ confidence and young people’s learning. It jeopardises the life chances both of those who are involved and their peers. If not tackled, the causes of unacceptable behaviour, which may lie outside the school, may continue to damage their own lives and those of others into adult life.

13. In its Charter on behaviour ‘Learning to Behave’ 3 (a copy is attached for your information4) the NUT outlined the entitlements and responsibilities of all those involved in school communities. The NUT fundamentally believes that it is the right of teachers to teach and the right of children and young people to learn.

Bullying

14. The NUT welcomes the Government’s pledge on tackling homophobic bullying. Guidance to schools should ensure that all school behaviour policies make clear that racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic incidents and harassment against pupils or staff on the grounds of disability or religion or belief will not be tolerated. They should refer explicitly to strategies to prevent homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist and disablist bullying and to eliminate

2 Improving School Behaviour, Chris Watkins, Institute of Education, Paper for NAPCE, National Association for Pastoral Care in Education, 2000 3 Learning to Behave: A Charter for Schools, National Union of Teachers, 2006 4 Not published on the Committee’s website. 29

the homophobic and sexist content of commonly used terms of verbal abuse. The NUT suggests that school policies on equal opportunities and on harassment and bullying should be required to state that the school will take action to protect all pupils and staff from all forms of harassment.

15. In its survey on Homophobia carried out in Oldham (2008) the NUT found that 85% of teachers who responded to the survey had witnessed incidents of homophobic abuse being made to pupils or teachers each week. Over half of the teachers responding to the survey had been the target of homophobic abuse themselves by pupils during the school year.

16. Cyberbullying is a growing issue within schools linked to a range of behaviour issues. The NUT believes that it is an area which should be addressed within school behaviour policies.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions

17. School communities benefit from a strong lead from head teachers and senior managers in addressing challenging behaviour. The provision of positive support to staff is essential for the effective management of behaviour. Ofsted5 found that senior managers who provided close support to staff contributed significantly to the effective management of behaviour.

18. The NUT is deeply concerned about the high exclusion rates in Academies. Department for Education figures for 2008/09 (published July 2010) show that permanent exclusion rates in Academies were almost three times as high as those in all schools – 0.31 per cent in Academies compared with 0.09 per cent in all schools – and almost double the rate for local authority maintained secondaries (0.17 per cent). The rate of fixed period exclusions in Academies was 13.51 per cent compared with 4.89 per cent in all schools and 9.26 per cent in local authority maintained secondaries.

19. The figures also show how certain groups of children – those with special educational needs (SEN), those on free schools meals and those from ethnic minority backgrounds have much higher exclusion rates overall. Given these facts, the high exclusion rate in Academies must raise concern about whether Academies are discriminating against some disadvantaged groups of children. It would be of concern to the NUT if Academies were using exclusion to remove young people who might depress the exam results at those institutions.

20. The NUT also has concerns that the pressures on schools to maintain their place in the league tables may cause them to consider using either ‘unofficial’ or permanent exclusions as a mechanism to achieve this.

21. Curriculum organisation can also have a significant impact on pupil behaviour. The NUT believes that head teachers and senior colleagues should work collaboratively and in consultation with teachers in order to design coherent

5 Managing Challenging Behaviour, Ofsted, March 2005, HMI 2363 30

curriculum models which can meet the needs of all children. Such models should be based on teachers’ professional judgement and knowledge of their pupils.

22. NUT members consistently report, for example, that the change of curriculum for pupils entering year one, which is often more formal and less flexible than the EYFS, leads to inappropriate pupil behaviour. In many instances this is due to the inflexibility of the curriculum and the inappropriate way in which this transition stage is managed by the school. Introducing a transition stage for at least a term and allowing access to outdoor play areas can support pupils in this year group, particularly summer born boys for whom the change can be traumatic.

23. The link between inappropriate pupil behaviour and SATs is also reported by NUT members. Pupil frustration at often being required to sit and cram for too long can lead to unacceptable behaviour. The removal of such pressures on staff and pupils would greatly support those advocating a more flexible curriculum.

24. There is evidence from a range of sources including the DfE itself, Ofsted and DEA which suggests that global learning supports and reinforces positive behaviour through an emphasis on critical and creative thinking, self- awareness and open-mindedness towards difference. Such approaches help to build pupil confidence, empathy and sense of social responsibility which support and reinforce positive behaviours.

25. The NUT’s CPD programme in collaboration with the International policy team is currently providing a course for teachers called ‘Internationalising Learning’, which includes a focus on teaching about identity, empathy, respect for others and community cohesion. Global teaching resources and ideas trialled by participants during the course are posted on the NUT’s website at http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/11676 which means that they can be shared with and adapted by other teachers. One participant on the course said

“Since trialling the global dimension in my class over the last few weeks, pupils have learned to appreciate other people’s opinions and that different views and attitudes are okay, developed skills of empathy and learned reasoning and deduction skills-being able to argue effectively and appropriately…”.

26. Ofsted noted in its research on Education for sustainable development6 that

“some school leaders identified links between particular pupils’ involvement in sustainable activities and improvement in their attitudes and behaviour generally.”

27. Independent Appeals Panels (IAP) should include at least one classroom teacher as a representative. The NUT believes that IAP’s should always demonstrate ‘reasonableness’ when making a judgement about returning a

6 OFSTED, Education for sustainable development, 2009, Manchester 31

pupil to a school. For example, where a teacher has been injured in an altercation with a pupil, the NUT would deem such a move to be unreasonable in terms of the expectations of any future teacher: pupil working relationship and would expect the IAP to judge it to be unacceptable for the pupil to return to that school.

28. The NUT believes that schools’ access to local authority behaviour support services provides an important element in the success of school behaviour strategies. Access to behaviour specialists and the range of behaviour services is of particular importance in supporting schools with less experience of managing inappropriate pupil behaviour. Any reduction or loss of support services could result in an increase in the number of exclusions from such schools.

29. A further concern of the NUT is the impact of the Academies programme on local authority support services. As greater numbers of schools become removed from local authority control there is a real danger of local authority services such as behaviour support being outsourced or disbanded completely.

Recognising special educational needs in schools' policies on behaviour and discipline

30. The school Behaviour Policy should include a commitment to co-ordinating provision across the school for pupils with SEN to secure appropriate support for these pupils, as well as an explanation of the role of the SENCO in ensuring that the needs of pupils with SEN are met.

31. In order to prevent disabled pupils and pupils with SEN becoming involved in the disciplinary route in schools, reasonable adjustments and special education provision should be made for them.

32. One of the recommendations of ‘The Costs of Inclusion’7 report was that future education policy should serve to enhance collaboration among schools to ensure the best service to all children. The NUT advocates closer links between mainstream schools, special schools and short stay schools in order to foster effective learning communities, co-operative multi-agency work and joined up family services.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

33. The NUT believes that high quality alternative provision for pupils excluded from school is essential to both the continuity of education for the pupil and as a way of supporting them to manage their own behaviour appropriately. The importance of close links between teachers in alternative provision and mainstream schools cannot be underestimated. It is where there is a breakdown in communication between establishments which have

7 The Costs of Inclusion, MacBeath and Galton, University of Cambridge/NUT, May 2006 32

responsibility for a pupil that the danger of them ‘falling through the net’ becomes apparent.

34. Partnership working between schools and alternative provision including short stay schools and special schools is a positive way in which staff can work more effectively together to support pupils in managing their own behaviour without recourse to exclusion. The NUT supports the way in which behaviour partnerships can enable schools to facilitate ‘managed moves’ with the least disruption to the pupil.

35. There is a concern, however, that the introduction of a greater number of Academy schools into the system will remove the ability of schools to continue to engage in behaviour partnerships. Academies have no requirement to belong to such partnerships and can simply ‘opt out’ of such a system.

Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

36. It is well-recognised that pupils attending school regularly are less likely to engage in inappropriate or poor behaviour. Teachers are well aware that there are many reasons why a pupil may have poor attendance, some of which will not be factors which they can control, such as parental illness or disability, parental alcoholism or drug abuse or being required to care for younger siblings, for example. Schools should also remain vigilant about the impact which domestic violence and abuse can have on pupil behaviour and the ways in which such pupils can be supported.

37. Pupils need support in informing schools about such issues at home and they need to feel confident that the consequences of divulging such information to a school will not have any detrimental consequences.

38. This role constitutes part of the duty of care of a school and should not fall to teachers to manage. The importance of effective communication, however, between the social service or care elements of schools and the classroom teacher must not be underestimated. For teachers to be most effective it is important that they do have an understanding of a pupil’s home circumstances where it may affect their ability to reach school on time, have persistent absence or find it difficult to meet deadlines.

The Government's proposals regarding teachers' powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers' disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July

39. The NUT calls for an unequivocal statement from Government that if teachers use their powers to search pupils or their rights regarding physical restraint there will be no unforeseen consequences arising from their actions. Teachers have a duty of care to pupils which may at times cause them to intervene to protect pupils from harming themselves or other pupils. Many are currently not confident that if they take such action they will be supported by senior leadership teams, parents or the local authority should an inquiry be conducted.

40. One NUT member made the following statement regarding teachers disciplinary powers:

“Most teachers are reluctant because they only see this physical intervention as a last ditch attempt to resolve a situation. There is a perception however that this kind of intervention may well either cause themselves harm or bring about disciplinary action. Despite a well negotiated restraint policy in our County, staff still become victim of disciplinary action for the most "soft" intervention such, as leading a pupil by the arm. In one case this led to a teacher being suspended causing all the usual stress involved in such matters. As a consequence any positives coming out of County training gets overridden by actual events”.

41. The NUT supports the importance of maintaining teachers ‘normal’ practice with regard to using physical restraint on pupils. Practice may, however, vary greatly between the different key stages of education and between sectors within the school system. Members report for example that different levels of pupil behaviour are accepted within short stay schools than might be considered reasonable in mainstream schools. There are also differences in the extent to which a teacher might comfort a child in the early years sector which would not be considered appropriate for older children. This is what is meant by teachers being able to work in a way which is ‘normal’ for them within their particular workplace. It is important that policy and guidance for staff reflects and supports this.

42. The NUT believes that reporting incidents of restraint within school should not be enforced as a statutory requirement but left to the judgement of the individual head teacher.

43. The proposed introduction of flexibility in the notice required for detentions is supported by the NUT with the caveat that sensitivity regarding no notice detentions, where such action could make a child vulnerable, is retained and schools themselves are trusted to make such judgements.

44. The NUT has general concerns about any relaxation of the requirements regarding teachers search powers in which the gender of the searcher and the witness need only be the same gender as the pupil being searched where this is reasonably practical. The NUT recognises, however, that there may be difficulties for small schools in such cases, where the availability of a particular gender may prove impractical. Nationwide generic advice becomes difficult in these circumstances. Individual schools should therefore have specific guidance in their own behaviour policies to cover such eventualities, possibly having named persons or posts which have been appropriately trained to handle such delicate situations.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Demos

This submission is based on analysis and recommendations in the Demos report Ex Curricula (2010) by Sonia Sodha and Julia Margo.

The problem: the nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools

1. The evidence seems to suggest behaviour in general is getting better in schools, but the behaviour of a small minority of children is posing greater difficulties for schools and teachers. This is borne out by the evidence about children with behavioural issues: studies suggest 7.4 per cent of children may have ADHD; 15 per cent of 15 year olds have conduct problems; around 15 per cent of children start school at age five have troublesome behaviour that might make it difficult to learn; and research suggests that up to five per cent of pupils display challenging behaviour at some stage in their school career.i

The issues with the current system of exclusion

2. Exclusion is extremely common in England. In 2006/07, the last year for which data is available, 6,080 pupils were permanently excluded from schools in England.ii For fixed‐term exclusions in the same year, there were: a. 363,270 from secondary schools, with an average length of 3.3 days b. 45,730 from primary schools, with an average length of 2.7 days c. 16,600 from special schools

3. The process of exclusion is also an overwhelmingly punitive one. Carl Parsons argues that DfES policy papers and circulars referring to exclusion are particularly negative:iii “The tone and orientation are controlling and oppositional. Even the discussion about pastoral support programmes is about confronting and diverting the unwanted behaviour and not, for the most part, about meeting unmet needs”.

4. This approach is almost unique to the UK. In most other countries, exclusion is considered abnormal and unacceptably punitive.iv Yet in the UK, and especially in England, exclusion is relatively commonplace. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland exclude at far lower rates than England, and Wales has a marginally lower rate.v The only countries to share a similar approach to England are the US and Australia. In most countries, policy rests on the fundamental principal that all children should be receiving full‐time education; there is not the provision for regulating the exclusion of a child that exists in English Law.vi Thus, in Europe: It remains the case that, if a child is to be expelled from school, it is the headteacher’s responsibility to find another placement for the child before the exclusion occurs. This is the situation in Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Spain and Ireland.vii

5. This creates an accountability gap. Local authorities assume responsibility directly for a child’s education once they have been permanently excluded. But systems of 35

holding local authorities accountable for these outcomes are inadequate. The current system allows schools to shift responsibility to local authorities: once a child has been excluded, they are no longer on their school roll. For some schools, the process of exclusion may therefore be more attractive than utilising in‐school early interventions or getting a statement from the local authority.viii

6. Exclusion is also expensive both in terms of the cost of administration at the time, and the overall costs to society. a. Like the process of statementing, exclusion is a costly process in administrative terms for the school and local authority. In 1999 Carl Parsons,ix using a sample of local authorities, estimated the cost in England of managing the exclusion process to be £720 per exclusion; £831 in 2005 prices (or around £930 in 2008 prices).x b. New Philanthropy Capital’s report Misspent Youthxi estimated that the average excluded child costs £63, 851 to society over their lifetime. This calculation includes costs to the child in future lost earnings resulting from poor qualifications but also to society in terms of crime, health and social service.

7. Not only is the approach a punitive, expensive and unnecessary one, it is also hugely unfair. Certain groups of young people are much more likely to end up excluded: three‐quarters of those who are excluded have special needs, almost a third are eligible for FSM, and looked after children are seven times more likely to be excluded than their peers.xii Pupils identified as having special educational needs (SEN) are more likely to be permanently excluded. Less than 0.05 per cent of students without SEN are permanently excluded, compared to 0.2 per cent of students on School Action, 0.85 per cent of pupils on School Action Plus (19 times more likely), and 0.35 per cent of pupils with statements (seven times more likely). And it is getting worse: pupils with statements are seven times more likely to be excluded, an increase from five times more likely in 2003/04 and six times more likely in 2006/07.xiii

8. Children identified as having SEN make up 70 per cent of permanent exclusions, and it varies hugely between 43 to 92 per cent from local authority to local authority.xiv The figure is highest for primary schools: 87 per cent of primary exclusions and 60 per cent of secondary exclusions were of children identified as having SEN.xv A significant proportion of these had ADHD, autistic behaviour, and mental health problems. In other words, a punitive approach is too often being used to deal with these forms of SEN rather than specialist provision. In 2008, around 70,000 pupils were taught in PRUs after being excluded from mainstream schools (just over half of the total number of pupils educated in PRUs) and most were boys aged 11 to 15.xvi These are the young people who most need help and support to manage their educational and emotional needs. Yet these are the often the young people who end up with the least support from mainstream education.

The quality of alternative provision

9. Alternative provision in England can be poor quality, which tends to drive disengagement, and accentuate the problems that led to exclusion in the first place. In their 2006/07 annual report, Ofsted noted that PRUs ‘lack a clear vision for their pupils and offer an uninspiring curriculum. As a result, they fail to improve the pupils' attendance or reduce days lost through exclusion’.xvii There have been worries that PRUs are seen as ‘sin bins’ or ‘dumping grounds’, and that enforced association with anti‐social peers may exacerbate rather than improve behavioural problems. PRUs have developed a reputation as ‘holding units’ as opposed to educational centres. xviii

10. Only one per cent of 15 year olds in PRUs achieved five GCSEs at grades A*‐C or equivalent. This success rate compares poorly to equivalent alternative provision in, for instance, Canada. Outreach schools operating in many of Canada’s provinces cater for students unable to attend mainstream schools for a wide variety of reasons. Some of these have a graduation rate on a par with, and even exceeding, average graduation rates of mainstream schools.xix

11. A recent survey by Ofsted evaluated the extent to which a sample of schools and local authorities were meeting their requirements, the provisions in place, and how they ensured education for excluded pupils was of good quality.xx It made a number of key findings. a. Eight of the 28 secondary schools, and two of the three special schools surveyed, did not comply with the requirements to provide suitable and full‐ time education from day six for pupils on fixed‐term exclusions. One special and five secondary schools provided education on their own site but, contrary to the requirements in the regulations, failed to share the arrangements with partnership schools. They felt more able to ensure continuity for pupils’ learning if they provided exclusively for their pupils on their own site. b. Seven of the 26 schools that complied with the requirements used PRUs to support pupils; and 13 educated them on site or within the partnership. Only a handful of schools used alternative providers and two used local authority provision, such as the youth service. c. All but two of the 18 local authorities identified their own PRU for day six provision for permanently excluded pupils, but eight of them did not provide full‐time and suitable provision for all permanently excluded pupils from day six. A lack of capacity in PRUs was the main reason for non‐compliance.

12. These findings are echoed in other studies of alternative provision: one study conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation investigated the provision provided for permanently excluded children and those at risk from permanent exclusion in two local authorities in the Midlands. The research, which used a mixed methodology of surveys, interviews, spatial mapping and observation, found that in the areas they looked at: To determine what will be on offer to a pupil, they [local authorities] tend not to use any directory of provision, but rely on their own networks, their ‘diagnosis’ of what the young person needs and the funding they have available […]. Depending on the time of year and available funding, caseworkers may have a wide choice of options or very restricted ones. Our data 37

contain several examples of pupils being sent on specialist programmes because nothing else was available.xxi In other words, there is a real issue over the quality of supply when schools are looking to source in high quality alternative provision.

13. A number of issues with alternative provision are widely acknowledged. The current framework is very complicated, and parents are often confused by the plethora of programmes offered to their children.xxii The same Midlands study found that: Parents/carers and young people appeared to have no formal structures for input into discussions about what kind of alternative provision was available within their locality. But, more importantly, they seemed relatively powerless in the process of allocation to programmes.xxiii

14. Research has found the type of provision offered to children may not match their aspirations and interests, further driving their disengagement: two local authorities were found to have poor ‘academic’ provision for excluded pupils with only seven out of around 180 types of provision offering academic courses, the rest were vocational, despite widespread academic aspirations amongst many students.xxiv

15. Alternative provision is very costly too. The state spends much more on children in PRUs than it does on those in mainstream education. The latest government figures estimate a cost of £15,000 a year for a full time PRU placement. This compares with around £4,000 for mainstream secondary schools.xxv Rather than spending this money on very expensive provision once a child has been formally excluded, it would be better to buy in services that are alternative forms of learning and support services much earlier on.

Early intervention strategies: how to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

16. There are various early intervention programs that have been extremely well evaluated. Their implementation would result in better schools, less exclusions and less money spent in the long run. a. A whole school approach i. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) programme in the US has been evaluated particularly positively by many studies. It is a programme helping children develop social skills via a range of teaching methods and covers readiness and self‐control, feelings and relationships, problem solving and supplementary lessons. PATHS is designed to be used by the whole class throughout the primary years. It has been found to have a significant effect on exclusions and behaviour in the whole school. ii. The government has introduced the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme, based on US programmes. The government‐funded evaluation of SEAL is poorly designed in terms of measuring the long‐term impacts of the programme, which is a great shame.xxvi However, a recent Ofsted report compared schools that had excluded four to seven year olds with those who had not, and 38

found that the use of ‘circle time’ and SEAL were particularly effective in managing complex behaviour in primary schools and taking a preventative approach to problem behaviour with young children. b. Learning mentors and LSUs i. Learning mentors and learning support units (LSUs) have been widely acknowledged as successful interventions in promoting good behaviour. The Excellence in Cities programme provided ring‐fenced funding to LSUs and learning mentors between 1999 and 2006. But concerns have been expressed that when schools are expected to fund them from their own budgets, the money may not be there.xxvii c. High quality alternative provision i. High quality alternative provision can be used to reengage children who are poorly behaved and disengaged from their learning and, as Sir Alan Steer has argued should be used as part of a planned early intervention strategy before serious incidents of misbehaviour occur.xxviii d. Multi‐agency working i. The evidence has consistently demonstrated the importance of multi‐ agency working, such as multi‐agency support teams for schools, for effectively tackling the underlying causes of poor behaviour.xxix Evaluation of multi‐disciplinary Behaviour and Education Support Teams (BESTs) suggests that these were effective. e. Nurture groups i. Ofsted’s recent report on the exclusion of primary school children explored the ways that some schools manage to avoid using exclusion.xxx The report detailed how nine of the schools surveyed (from total of 69) had ‘nurture groups’ and found these essential for supporting young children most in need and displaying complex and compound behaviours.

Barriers to early intervention: the accountability gap and funding 17. Sir Alan Steer‘s review also found that there is a lack of early intervention, meaning that some children are unnecessarily being excluded and, as a result, suffering poor outcomes.xxxi The current system discourages early intervention to some extent because schools may find it easier to pass the buck than tackle issues using in‐school provision.xxxii It is cheaper for a school to exclude a child than to spend on early intervention (for which there is little funding).

18. Preventative programmes and interventions are not a legally binding element of local authority spending, unlike provision for excluded pupils which is an obligation under the Education Act 2003. For these reasons the legal impetus on local authorities is retrospective, rather than proactive, when it comes to tackling disengagement. This has led to a situation where, as one piece of research based on two local authorities found:

In order to get into alternative provision, pupils must either transgress their school disciplinary code or be so disengaged that they take themselves out of the school system.xxxiii

19. There is frequently a lack funding for spending on early intervention. Early intervention approaches tend to be tied to short term, specific ring‐fenced funding from the department which ceases after a few years, and jeopardises the stability of these interventions (the Excellence in Cities programme, Parent Support Advisers and Behaviour and Education Support Teams are examples). Those schools that have adopted early intervention programmes on a long term basis have had to look for alternative sources of funding, not available to all schools, or fund programmes from other budgets.

Demos recommendations 20. The process of exclusion: Permanent exclusion, in which a child leaves the school rolls and the local authority becomes accountable for them, should be abolished in its existing sense. A school should be able to buy in alternative provision for children for whom it is deemed appropriate as an early intervention strategy for improving behaviour or as a way of dealing with poor behaviour. But there should be no permanent ‘exclusion’ in the sense of a child leaving a school roll. Headteachers should remain accountable for children and they should remain on the school roll rather than passing to local authority accountability. In this way, headteachers are encouraged to buy in the best possible provision for children needing alternative provision in conjunction with the local authority.

21. Training: There should be more and better training on behaviour management as part of initial teacher training and CPD.

22. Improving evidence‐based practice to generate high‐quality alternative provision: There needs to be dissemination of evidence‐based practice in alternative provision, as well as early prevention initiatives to tackle behavioural issues. There urgently needs to be a review of alternative provision and the range of evidence‐based practices in each area. Local authorities should be charged with the responsibility of ensuring there is high quality alternative provision in their planning functions for children and young people.

23. Accountability: Aside from the reforms above, the quality assurance of alternative provision needs to happen on the same basis as quality assurance for schools. Ofsted should be charged with inspecting alternative provision regardless of sector (in other words, voluntary and community sector and private sector provision should be inspected by Ofsted in the same way that PRUs are). Alternative provision settings should also get report cards like schools, when they are introduced.

24. Funding of early intervention: Schools should have increased deprivation and needs‐ based funding to spend on early intervention approaches to tackling behavioural issues. Otherwise insufficient resource is devoted to early intervention, and more spent once a child has been excluded. 40

25. Accountability: Targets need to be reformed so they are based on average performance rather than threshold targets: the progress of all children should contribute to assessment of a school’s performance.

September 2010

i Ofsted, Managing Challenging Behaviour. ii DCSF, Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2006/07. iii Parsons, ‘School exclusion: the will to punish’. iv Ibid. v Parsons, Education, Exclusion and Citizenship. vi Ibid. vii Ibid. viii See http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper29.pdf (accessed 6 Feb 2010). ix Parsons, Education, Exclusion and Citizenship. x This estimate was based on a 1994/05 study of six local education authorities, involving costs for the financial year 1998/1999. Calculated by deducting home tuition and PRU costs from total education costs – to arrive at total costs to formal/mainstream education system) then dividing this by the total number of exclusions. xi Ibid. xii DCSF, Back on Track: A strategy for modernising alternative service provision for children. xiii Steer, Review of Pupil Behaviour: Interim report 4. xiv Lamb, The Lamb Enquiry: Special educational needs and parental confidence. xv Audit Commission, Special Educational Needs – A Mainstream Issue. xvi DCSF, Pupil Referral Unit Census, 2008 (London: DCSF, 2009). xvii Ofsted (2007) Annual Reportt of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector 2006/07 London: Ofsted xviii Goodhall, School’s Out? Truancy and Exclusion. xix Margo and Sodha, Thursday’s Child. xx Ofsted, Day Six of Exclusion: The extent and quality of provision for pupils. xxi See http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2073‐exclusion‐alternatives‐education.pdf (accessed 6 Feb 2010). xxii See http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2073‐exclusion‐alternatives‐education.pdf (accessed 6 Feb 2010). xxiii Ibid. xxiv See http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2073‐exclusion‐alternatives‐education.pdf (accessed 6 Feb 2010). xxv DCSF, Back on Track: A strategy for modernising alternative service provision for children. xxvi See Sodha and Guglielmi, A Stitch in Time for a fuller discussion. xxvii The Practitioner Group on School Behaviour and Discipline, Learning Behaviour: The report of the Practitioner Group on School Behaviour and Discipline. xxviii Steer, Review of Pupil Behaviour: Interim report 4. xxix Sodha and Margo, Thursday’s Child. xxx Ofsted, The Exclusion from School of Children Aged Four to Seven. xxxi Steer, Review of Pupil Behaviour: Interim report 4. xxxii See http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper29.pdf (accessed 6 Feb 2010). xxxiii See http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2073‐exclusion‐alternatives‐education.pdf (accessed 6 Feb 2010). 41

Memorandum submitted by Jeff Hardman, Director, European Education Consultants Ltd

For the past 19 years European Education Consultants Limited have worked alongside schools and Local Education Authorities in providing support across the breadth of Health, Safety and Wellbeing. Our experience stems from teaching, advising at Local Authority level and Inspecting under Ofsted guidelines.

We now provide a suite of on-line modules designed to help those who oversee Children and Young People ' s Directorates and those who manage individual units and establishments within the directorate. The suite comprises a range of on- modules to assist educational and associated establishments in the management processes for Risk Management, Accident Reporting, Auditing, Off-Site Visit Management and Case Management (CAF) and in helping them to develop proactive strategies for improvement.

As an addition to the suite we have been working for the past 12 months with Somerset County Council’s CYPD Directorate in designing a proactive system for monitoring incidents of unsatisfactory behaviour, including bullying and racial discrimination, to produce a detailed statistical overview of all incidents in order to create profiles which will help in the creation of strategies designed to negate future occurrences.

Somerset CYPD will shortly to be rolling the program out to their schools etc and have no objection, should the select committee wish, to this being monitored by the Committee. Access can be provided and statistical data provided to show how trends and triggers can be used to put strategies in place, not only for the improvement of behaviour but also the quality of teaching and learning.

Specialists in web solutions for Health, Safety and Welfare Management

September 2010 42

Memorandum submitted by the Incorporated Society of Musicians

Music, behaviour and discipline in schools The Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) will not be making full submission to the Committee’s inquiry into behaviour and discipline in schools. However, we raise one issue of concern within this letter to the committee. Submission 1.1 We are deeply concerned by a number of reports about a school in Derby using ‘classical’ music as a punishment.1 If music is to contribute to good behaviour and discipline, it must be as a positive stimulant rather than being used to reinforce negative notions of inaccessibility, exclusivity and boredom. The use of any particular style of music as a ‘punishment’ is utterly unacceptable. 1.2 Recent research suggests that music has a positive role to play in improving behaviour. 1.3 The review of the Wider Opportunities programme by Professor Anne Bamford and Paul Glinkowski2 suggested that in this particular project, music education improved pupil behaviour and discipline issues in comparison to other class lessons and that this behaviour improvement was ‘in some situations transferred to other areas of the school day’. In addition, school day attendance improved as a result of a motivation to attend music lessons.

1.4 Alongside this research, it has been demonstrated that music education has social3, emotional, and health4 advantages for children from all social backgrounds5. These will have a knock-on effect on behaviour and discipline.

About the ISM

2.1 We are the professional body for music and musicians. 2.2 Sir Adrian Boult, Sir Thomas Beecham, Sir Malcolm Sargent, The Lord Menuhin OM KBE (Yehudi Menuhin), Sir David Willcocks and Dame Gillian Weir are all past chairs of the Incorporated Society of Musicians. Our internationally recognised Distinguished Musician Award, first awarded in 1976, has been received by Sir William Walton OM, Jacqueline du Pre OBE, Sir Michael Tippett OM CH CBE, Sir Colin Davis CBE, Sir Charles Mackerras AC CH CBE and Pierre Boulez. 2.3 Founded in 1882, our 5,400 individual members who come from all branches of the profession: soloists, orchestral and ensemble performers, composers, teachers, academics, a recent Mercury Prize nominee and students. Our corporate membership of approximately 100 organisations includes Classic FM, the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM), the Worshipful Company of Musicians, the Association of British Orchestras, all the conservatoires, several universities and specialist music schools. 2.4 We are independent of government and not financially dependent on any third party. Our Chief Executive, Deborah Annetts, now chairs the Music Education Council, the umbrella body for music education in the UK

1 Bach to basics regime deters school troublemakers, Guardian newspaper, Monday 18 January 2010 2 Wow, its music next: Impact evaluation of Wider Opportunities Programme in Music at Key Stage Two, 29 January 2010 3 Making more of music: an evaluation of music in schools 2005-2008, Ofsted, 2009:58 4 Choral singing, wellbeing and health, Stephen Clift et al., Sidney de Haan Centre, August 2008 5 Champions of change Edward B Fiske, The Arts Education, 1999 43

September 2010 44

Memorandum submitted by Dr Sue Roffey 1. Summary 2. If we want pupils to learn and develop pro-social behaviour, rather than only behaving well because they might get into trouble if they don’t, we need to develop a different conceptualisation about behaviour that includes healthy relationship building, increased participation, responsibility and meaningful consequences. 3. A Zero Tolerance approach to challenging behaviour damages relationships, and the evidence produced by a task force of the American Psychological Association says that it does not improve behaviour overall in the school, and academic outcomes also suffer. 4. High levels of control in a relationship are counter-productive. Detention is a blunt and ineffective instrument. 5. Some of our most challenging children are also the most vulnerable. They need more not less connection to school. Restorative approaches are more effective in changing behaviour and reducing social exclusion 6. Good teaching practice underpins good behaviour in class – didactic or otherwise dull pedagogies do not engage students. Disengaged students find behavioural distractions 7. Teacher training needs a greater emphasis on the psycho/social dynamics of teaching and the quality of the learning environment. This is beyond behaviour management 8. Credentials for making this submission 9. I am writing this submission on the basis of the following: 10. Many years experience as a teacher working with children and young people with behavioural difficulty. A main grade teacher in two mainstream schools, a teacher in a special EBD school, teacher in charge of a special unit for long-term non-attendees and Acting Director of the Camden and Islington Educational Guidance Centre, a part-time facility for excluded students with the aim of re-integration into their main school. 11. Over ten years experience as an educational psychologist, mostly in London, working in a very diverse and challenging borough (Haringey). My last post there in 1998 was as Principal Psychologist. As a senior psychologist I coordinated the borough’s attendance project and as part of this worked with a multi-disciplinary group to produce The Primary School Guidelines to Behaviour - recommended as a case study for good practice by the government in 1996. 12. Substantial experience as an academic: I was involved for five years teaching school counsellors in training at the University of Western Sydney and am now an adjunct research fellow there and an honorary lecturer at University College London. Amongst other relevant research I was involved in the Australian Federal Government’s recent Scoping Study on Student Wellbeing (http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/wellbeing/Documents/ScopingStudy.pdf ). 13. Prolific author on behaviour in school: In writing on these issues I have read a great deal of the relevant research - this is all evidence-based practice. I have also written on relationships and wellbeing but the following texts are the most directly relevant to this inquiry. • Roffey, S. (2011) Changing Behaviour in Schools: Promoting Positive Relationships and Wellbeing. London: Sage Publications (available November 2010). This summarises the 45

most up to date evidence about what works to change rather than simply manage behaviour. • Roffey, S. (2011) New Teachers Survival Guide to Behaviour. 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications (available March 2011, first edition published 2004). • Roffey. S. (2006) Helping with Behaviour in the Early Years: Establishing the Positive and Addressing the Difficult. London: Routledge Falmer. • Roffey, S. & O’Reirdan, T. (2003) Plans for Better Behaviour in the Primary School: Management and Intervention. London: David Fulton Publishers. This is based on the multi-disciplinary project in Haringey. • Roffey. S, (ed) (2002) School Behaviour and Families: Frameworks for Working Together. London: David Fulton Publishers (Based on Doctoral thesis). • Roffey, S. & O’Reirdan, T. (2001) Young Children and Classroom Behaviour: Needs, Perspectives and Strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers (also published in Spanish 2004). Developed from funded project about how young children settle into school and the differences between schools in successfully managing this process. 14. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools • Teach behaviour to children when they first come to school in a structured and non- judgmental way. Give reminders before reprimands. • Develop nurture groups for the most damaged children entering school – the evidence says this is an effective first strategy. • Build a positive self-concept by referring to and reinforcing strengths and qualities. • Avoid negative labels – they are self-perpetuating. • Devise class guidelines together with students. • Ensure that all teachers entering the profession understand the importance of the teacher- student relationship, what that means and how to put it into practice – some do this beautifully, others really have no idea and exacerbate difficulties. • Model pro-social behaviour and respect at all times – children learn by what they see and hear. • Help teachers understand and learn to deal well with the emotions inherent in behavioural difficulties. • Be aware of cultural differences and respond appropriately • Understand that some of our most challenging children are also the most vulnerable. They need more not less connection to school. Focus on how children develop a sense of belonging – this also gives them increased responsibility for each other. • Teach relational values and relationship skills in a safe and supportive environment. • Teach resilience skills to children so they have a repertoire of ways of thinking about and dealing with adversity. • Teach children first, curriculum second – in high schools students feel that learning is less accessible and meaningful and teachers are more controlling – as children get older it should be the other way round. 46

• The evidence is clear that a whole child, whole school approach to supporting positive behaviour is the most effective approach rather than targeting individual children to change. • There are no quick fixes – it is consistent positive practice that makes the difference. 15. The nature and level of challenging behaviour in schools, and the impact upon schools and staff 16. Behaviour in schools is generally improving. Serious and violent behaviours are comparatively rare but get a lot of publicity. 17. It is the everyday irritations and low level behaviours that wear teachers down. The evidence is that many teachers feel isolated in the classroom, do not necessarily ask colleagues for support and often struggle with putting basic strategies into practice. The best practice is where teachers can share their concerns in a supportive discussion. This needs to be constructive or can deteriorate into a moan and blame session. 18. A collegial approach within school staff makes a positive difference to both teacher stress and skills. Head Teachers need as much training on the social/emotional dynamics of their school as teachers need about classrooms. 19. An over-crowded curriculum can be damaging to the quality of teaching and learning. 20. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions 21. Behavioural approaches have minimal long term impact. Punishment can be met with one of three responses: • Pupils for whom significant figures being disappointed in them is enough • Pupils for whom punishment can be a badge of pride • Pupils where nothing you can throw at them comes close to what they are already dealing with. 22. A Zero Tolerance approach to challenging behaviour damages relationships, and the evidence produced by a task force of the American Psychological Association says that it does not improve behaviour overall in the school and academic outcomes also suffer. They recommend, as do many others, that a restorative approach to behaviour is much more effective. This has also been my experience - I have seen many schools where behaviour has improved dramatically with this approach. Restorative approaches need to be introduced into the whole school system, not just be a package taken off the shelf. I have come across schools that tell me that they have ‘no detention, no suspension and no exclusion’. Their behaviour policy is based in relationship building and restorative practice. They have worked to get parents on side over time, but as parents can see this is effective together with an increased responsibility in their children, they have been convinced. 23. Where consequences are offered to students in response to unacceptable behaviour these need to be meaningful and delivered with respect. 24. The research on resilience says that even where children are dealing with multiple risk factors (and expressing their distress by behaving in challenging ways) schools can and 47

do make a considerable difference. (But teachers rarely get accolades for saving children’s lives and futures, just getting good test results). Resilience is built on: • someone who cares what happens to you and seeks your strengths rather than emphasising your deficits • high expectations and not giving up on you • the opportunity to participate and feel that you belong to your community. If that isn’t family or school it may be a gang. 25. Good teaching practice underpins good behaviour in class – didactic or otherwise dull pedagogies do not engage students. Disengaged students muck about. 26. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour 27. Parents are often at a loss themselves to manage behaviour well. Because of this they are inconsistent in their approach. They often do not realise what authoritative parenting entails (this is the parenting style with the most positive outcomes for children and young people and can be mirrored by authoritative teaching approaches). My experience is that most parents want the best for their children and want their children to be well-adjusted, sociable and happy individuals. Engaging parents on what helps their children be resilient, how the school is teaching pupils about healthy relationships and how these are being reinforced in the school will support parent knowledge and skills 28. It is a good idea to send home regular positive messages to parents about their children and what they are doing well – this is not just in academic subjects but in developing personal attributes. This has a dual outcome of making parents feel more disposed towards school (and many may have had negative experiences themselves) and also boost a positive parent-child interaction. 29. When difficulties do occur parents need to be approached as the expert on their child. Parents often feel blamed, helpless and marginalised in their interactions with schools over issues of school behaviour. This results in being embarrassed, angry and defensive or further condemning their child – who is left with no advocate. The way meetings are conducted is crucial to engaging parents positively. Courses for parents on the challenges children present delivered in school (and open to all) can be helpful. In piloting one of these last year parents said they learnt a great deal about child development and their relationship with their child had improved in a positive spiral. 30. It is important to make these interventions, meetings etc at a time and place that meets parents’ needs – and they should always be asked to bring along a supporter. Big school meetings can be highly intimidating and do not lead to improved pupil behaviour. 31. How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline 32. Learning and behaviour are two sides of the same coin. Distressed students don’t concentrate or learn well: learning difficulties often lead to immature behaviours. Dealing with these issues in silos is unhelpful, but often happens. 33. Assessment needs to include issues related to the whole child – and be solution focused so that there is a clear indication of where to go next. 34. Students need success experiences in both learning and behaviour in order to maintain motivation. 48

35. ‘Discipline’ has connotations of control and conformity – using the words positive behaviour policies is more congruent with the approaches suggested by the evidence. 36. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour 37. Wherever possible this should be linked to supporting a return to mainstream. There are poor outcomes for permanently excluded students in terms of social exclusion, mental health and criminality. 38. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools 39. Some issues pull children out of school. These include family disruption, violence, loss etc. Other issues push pupils out – these include being bullied, poor teacher-student relationships, not feeling that you can be successful, always getting into trouble. 40. The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers. 41. This is a slippery slope in the wrong direction. If we want students to learn and develop pro-social behaviour, rather than only behaving well because they might get into trouble if they don’t, we need to develop a different conceptualisation about healthy relationship building with both increased participation, responsibility and meaningful consequences. High levels of control in a relationship are counter-productive. Detention is a blunt and usually ineffective instrument. September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Jackie Deasy

I am a primary HT and wish to make the following contribution to the committee about behaviour and discipline in schools. I would propose the following be considered:

1. Training for STAFF and GOVERNORS: i. All schools should ensure all staff have CPD on behaviour management as part of the induction to new posts, in addition to having access to the school’s policy. ii. In line with Child Protection Awareness all staff have at least once every three years Behaviour Management CPD involving all staff who are part of the school team in all roles involving governors where possible. iii. Each school must have at least one BECO who in line with DSP role will have biannual training and refresher courses there after. 2. Educating the parents and parent/partnership: i. In line with point 1.ii All parents/carers have to attend once every 3 years or more often if HT feels is appropriate, a workshop on behaviour management. 3. Promoting parent/partnership to support their child’s behaviour: i. All parent to have signed a home/school agreement that includes working with the school in partnership to promote high standards of behaviour. Any parent refusing to accept their child’s behaviour as being inappropriate [assuming records and statements are kept to evidence this] and refuses to support the school or responds in an obstructive manner will be seen as choosing to support/promote unacceptable behaviour eg not attending meetings, cancelling meetings at short notice and or repeatedly failing to attend]. Also parents/carers questioning the school’s approach and staff’s involvement in managing their child’s behaviour, repeatedly taking their child’s word over staff, will also been seen as an overt action to breakdown the home/school partnership and then procedures would then be followed to: a)Parents/Carers will have to attend a meeting with a clear framework of time and points to discuss, initially with the HT/Senior staff, plus appropriate school staff and outside agencies [without parental permission but with their knowledge, including, possibly social care, police if appropriate etc.] This recognises that if the home/school partnership remains compromised which will potentially promote inappropriate behaviour in a child that outside agencies may have to be involved b)If this does not then engage the parents commitment to work in partnership the matter will be referred to a governor’s committee. This in turn warns the parents that lack of support/partnership may compromise their child’s place at the school. Time scales and review etc are then in place for both the parents and child’s behaviour. c) Class behaviour plans as part of the school’s policy are shared at the start of each academic year with parents. 3. SEN and Behaviour related matters/concerns. Parents/carers will be informed but cannot refuse for any outside agency to be involved with the school to support their child’s behaviour.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Dr Simon Gibbs

Re: Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

From: Dr Simon Gibbs, Senior Lecturer in Educational Psychology, Newcastle University

Relevant Personal details: I taught in secondary schools for 15 years before training as an Educational Psychologist. Since 1988 I have worked as an Educational Psychologist in the NE of England. I gained a PhD (in Psychology) in 1997. In 2007 I took up my present post as Programme Director for Educational Psychology training in Newcastle. In addition to my commitment to training Educational Psychologists, my main research areas are in relation to ‘Teachers’ beliefs and attributions about children’s behaviour’, ‘Inclusive Education’ and ‘The development of children’s reading.’

Preface and Summary

The challenge of managing the diversity of children’s behaviour and learning requires skillful and well motivated teaching. The costs of failure (economically and socially) are unsustainable. The following outlines one line of approach to support teachers in their professional duties and to help ensure good behaviour in schools.

The beliefs of teachers are reciprocally associated with the outcomes of their actions. Teachers who express confident beliefs in their ability to manage and teach all children in their classrooms are generally successful. The effects of poorly managed behaviour can erode teachers’ confidence and the practice of schools. The result of poor school and classroom management can be too many inappropriately excluded children. Teachers may have, or can be helped to acquire (or regain) more positive beliefs in their individual and collective efficacy. The outcomes can be fewer exclusions and higher levels of achievement. A key to this lies in good training, management and policy.

1. There is substantial evidence that the perception of and management of children’s behaviour is strongly influenced by the beliefs and attributions of teachers (Gibbs & Gardiner, 2008; Gibbs & Powell, in prep; Miller, 1995). 2. The ‘rate’ at which children are excluded from school appears to fluctuate with time and across countries. This appears to be at least partly in response to changes in policy and practice (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006; Imich, 1994; Theriot, Craun & Dupper, 2010). 3. Many researchers have also noted that children’s age, race and socio‐economic status are all important factors implicated in the way that school staff deal with behaviour and that some groups are over‐represented amongst children excluded from school (Bourne et al, 1994; Gillborn & Gipps, 1996; Noltemeyer & McLoughlin, 2010; Osler et al, 2001; Wright et al, 2000). 4. Whilst children’s poor behaviour may be an issue for teacher recruitment and retention (with associated costs; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003), children excluded from classrooms and schools implicate considerable additional costs for alternative provision (Parsons, 1998; Vulliamy & Webb, 2000). 5. The relative socio‐economic characteristics of the community served by a school are related with exclusion rates (Gibbs & Powell, in preparation; Noltemeyer & McGloughlin, 2010). 6. There is evidence that the characteristics of neither children nor schools fully account for rates of exclusion. Thus, schools with very similar characteristics and intakes may differ significantly in 51

the rate at which children are excluded (Galloway, Martin & Wilcox, 1985; Munn et al, 2001; Osler et al, 2001, Vulliamy & Webb, 2000). 7. When they are successful in managing children’s behaviour teachers are likely to attribute their success to their own skill and strategies; when they are unsuccessful, teachers will typically attribute the causes of the misbehaviour to factors outside school – for example children’s home and community circumstances (Miller, 1995, 2003). 8. ‘Unless people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to act. Efficacy belief therefore is a major basis of actions.’ (Bandura, 1997, p3). 9. Teachers who express little belief in their professional efficacy may be less tolerant of unusual behaviour or patterns of learning and more likely to seek removal of ‘problematic’ students from their classroom (Jordan & Stanovitch, 2003; Podell & Soodak, 1993). 10. Teachers’ ability to provide confident management of their classroom is a primary requirement for successful teaching (Woolfolk Hoy & Weinstein, 2006). 11. Strong, positive, correlations have been found between teachers’ beliefs in their classroom efficacy and their management of behaviour (Almog & Shechtman, 2007; Friedman & Kass, 2002). 12. The management style of senior staff may affect how supported the staff feels and how confident staff are working effectively with children (Ross & Gray, 2006). 13. Appropriate conceptualisation and implementation of teachers’ training and professional development, supported by policy and management can endorse and develop teachers’ successful inclusion (non‐discriminatory) practice (Stanovitch & Jordan, 2004). 14. A strong positive sense of the shared, collective efficacy of the school staff as a whole can enhance individual teacher’s efficacy beliefs (Gibbs & Powell, in prep; Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). 15. Enhanced efficacy is associated with an increasingly inclusive ethos, improved behaviour and achievement, and lower incidence of discrimination and exclusion (Gibbs, 2007; Jordan & Stanovitch, 2003).

September 2010

References

Almog, O. & Schechtman, Z. (2007) Teachers’ democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles of coping with behavioural problems of pupils with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 115‐129

Bandura, A. (1997) Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bourne, J., Bridges, L. & Searle, C. (1994) Outcast England: How Schools Exclude Black Children London: Institute of Race Relations

Friedman, I.A. & Kass, E. (2002) Teacher self‐efficacy: a classroom‐organisation conceptualisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 675‐686 52

Galloway, D., Martin, R. & Wilcox, B. (1985) Persistent Absence from School and Exclusion from School: the predictive power of school and community variables. British Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 51‐61

Gibbs, S. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of efficacy: Beliefs that may support inclusion or segregation. Educational and Child Psychology, 24 (3), 47‐53

Gibbs, S. & Gardiner, (2008) M. English and Irish Teachers’ Attributions for Misbehaviour: A preliminary cross‐phase and cross‐cultural investigation. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,8(2), 68‐77

Gibbs, S, & Powell, B. (In preparation) Teacher Efficacy and Pupil Behaviour: the structure of teachers’ individual and collective efficacy beliefs and their relationship with numbers of children excluded from school

Gillborn, D. and Gipps, C. (1996) Recent Research on the Achievement of Ethnic Minority Pupils. Ofsted Report London: HMSO

Gilliam,W.S. & Shahar,G. (2006) Presschool and Child Care Expulsion and Suspension: Rates and Predictors in One State. Infants and Young Children, 19(3), 228‐24

Goddard, R.D., & Goddard, Y.L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807‐818.

Goddard, R., Hoy, W. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004) Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3‐13

Grieve, A.M. (2009) Teachers’ beliefs about inappropriate behaviour: challenging attitudes. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 93), 173‐179

Imich, A.J. (1994) Exclusions from school: current trends and issues. Educational Research, 36(1), 3‐ 11

Ingersoll, R.M. & Smith, T.M. (2003) The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8),30‐33

Miller, A. (1995). Teachers’ attributions of causality, control and responsibility in respect of difficult pupil behaviour and its successful management Educational Psychology, 15, 457–471.

Miller, A. (2003) Teachers, Parents and Classroom Behaviour: A psychosocial approach Maidenhead: Open University Press

Munn, P., Cullen, M.A,, Johnstone, M. & Lloyd, G. (2001) Exclusion from school: a view from Scotland of policy and practice. Research Papers in Education, 16(1), 23‐42

Noltemeyer, A. & McLoughlin, C.S.(2010) Patterns of exclusionary discipline by school typology, ethnicity, and their interaction. Perspectives on Urban Education, Summer 2010, 27‐40

Osler, A., Watling, R. & Busher, H. (2001) Reasons for Exclusion from School. Research Report, No. 244 London: DfEE 53

Parsons, C. (1998) The costs of school exclusions. In N. Donovan (ed.) Second Chances London: New Policy Institute

Podell, D.M. & Soodak, L.C. (1993) Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 247‐253

Ross, J.A. & Gray, P. (2006) Transformational team leadership and teacher commitment to organisational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179‐199

Stanovitch, P.J. & Jordan, A. (2004) Inclusion as professional development. Exceptionality Education Canada, 14(2and3), 169‐188

Tschannen‐Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009) Sources of self‐efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self‐efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228‐245

Theriot, M.T., Craun, S.W. & Dupper, D.W. (2010) Multilevel evaluation of factors predicting exclusion among middle and high school students. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 13‐19

Vulliamy, G. & Webb, R. (2000) Stemming the Tide of Rising School Exclusions: Problems and Possibilities. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(2), 119‐133

Woolfolk‐Hoy, A. & Weinstein, C.S. (2006) Student and teacher perspectives on classroom management. In C.M.Evertson & C.S.Weinstein (Eds) Handbook of Classroom Management (London: LEA) pp181‐219

Wright, C., Weekes, D. & McGlaughlin, A. (2000) ‘Race’, Class and Gender in Exclusion from School London: Falmer

Memorandum submitted by The Adolescent and Children’s Trust (TACT)

Introduction

1. The Adolescent and Children’s Trust (TACT) is a national charity for children and young people involved with the care system. We are the UK’s largest charity provider of fostering and adoption services having nine offices through England, Scotland and Wales. TACT provides foster carers for over 500 children. As a service provider TACT’s evidence is based on day to day contact with looked after children, their foster carers and TACT’s frontline social workers. We also campaign on behalf of children and young people in care and on the edge of care.

2. TACT is a member of the Special Education Consortium (SEC) and as such we support and endorse the evidence SEC is providing to the Select Committee on behaviour and discipline on pupils with special educational needs (SEN). TACT would point out that of the 43,200 children who had been in care for more then 12 months in the year ending Sept 2009, 32,300 were of school age and of those over a quarter (27%) has SEN. There are no statistics to tell us the number of children who were permanently excluded who were both in care and have SEN, but the implication of the data available is that they will be a substantial proportion.

3. However TACT is submitting separate evidence on the issues of behaviour and discipline of children and young people who are looked after by local authorities under the 1989 Children’s Act. The education of these children has always been problematic and the issues for looked after children have a degree of specificity that require, in TACT’s view, special consideration generally about their education and, specifically, in terms of behaviour.

Children and Young People in Care and Education

4. Children end up in the care system through no fault of their own and yet are among the most disadvantaged. Currently, only the children of travellers have worse educational 55

outcomes. Historically the educational achievements of looked after children (LAC) have always been poor when compared with all children in the population. In 2008, 7% of children in care obtained 5 GCSEs A*‐ C. This compares with 49.8% of all children in England.1

5. Many children and young people in the care of local authorities enjoy high levels of educational achievements and go on to make a success of their lives. However far too many leave care with few or no qualifications and, as such, have poor life chances. The statistics on care leavers outlined by a report by the Centre for Social Justice make uncomfortable reading: 55% of care leavers suffer from depression; a third of care leavers misuse drugs and alcohol within a year of leaving care; around a third of those living on the street have a background in care; and 23% of the adult prison population have previously been in care.2

6. There is a high cost to this failure of the education system both to the children and young people (as we see above) and to the tax payer who has to support those who have come through the care system and cannot support themselves3. A disproportional number of young people who are ‘not in education, employment or training’ (NEET) are care leavers which demonstrates the negative continuum of poor education outcomes and future employment for children in care. In this respect TACT is pleased that the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith MP is making youth unemployment a priority. As the Secretary of State said in a recent speech, ‘Nearly 700,000 of the young people [who are unemployed] are looking for a role in life, but cannot find one….’

Coming into and being in care

7. Being taken into care and being looked after by the local authority for the vast majority is traumatic. Some children and young people develop a degree of resilience, but for most coming into and being in care has life long consequences and not least for their

1 Department of Children, Schools and Family (now the Department for Education) 2 Couldn’t Care Less: A Policy Report from the Children in Care Group, Centre for Social Justice 2009 p153 3 In a report by the DCSF in 2008 on Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care the estimated of the cost of supporting a young person in care with challenging behaviour and complex needs into their 30s is between £500,000 and £2m per person. 56

education. A recent study funded by the Dept. of Health comparing the mental health of 1500 looked after children with a sample of children living in private households showed the nearly 45% of looked after children has a psychiatric disorder of some type. This compares with nearly 10% for the children living in private households.4

8. These psychiatric disorders include emotional disorders such as post traumatic stress disorder, generalised anxiety and separation anxiety, as well as conduct disorders and hyperkinesis. This latter condition includes attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Recent research has also identified that there is a substantial overlap or comorbidity between these three groups of psychiatric disorders (emotional disorder, conduct disorder and hyperkinesis).5

9. The consequences for all children with mental health problems was spelt out by Professor Richard Layard in his report on Child Mental Health: • Mental problems obstruct many of our key goals for children. They disrupt learning; encourage truancy; increase school exclusion; and encourage drink and drugs use. • Mental problems also generate many of the social problems we experience with young adults – crime; teenage pregnancy; continuing mental illness, and benefit dependence.6 Professor Layard also said in the report that ‘The shocking thing is that only a quarter of them [school children with mental health problems] are receiving specialist care of the kind recommended by the NICE Guidelines.’

10. For looked after children to progress in their educational attainment it is clear that teaching staff will need knowledge of such conditions and have available support of the local mental health team. This was recognised by the Every Child Matters Project with the publication of their guidance for Children’s Trusts partnerships7 together with the

4 Quoted in Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care Annual Report 2008 p19 Table 3 5 Howe D ADHD and it’s comorbidity: an example of gene‐environment interaction and its implication for child and family social work Child and Family Social Work Vol. 15 No 3 pp265‐275 6 Layard R Child Mental Health: Key to a Healthier Society LSE 2008 http://cep.lse.ac.uk/textonly/_new/staff/layard/pdf/RL502A_ChildMentalHealth_15082008.pdf 7 Promoting the emotional health of children and young people Every Child Matters DCSF Jan 2010 http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/01125‐2009DOM‐EN.pdf 57

development of the National Indicator 58 – emotional and behavioural health of looked after children.

11. Unfortunately the availability of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), as indicated by Professor Layard, is totally inadequate and the schools are not getting the support they need to understand the behavioural issues for looked after children. As such inappropriate and damaging disciplinary action takes place. The provision of a country wide mental health service would be appropriate to support and reinforce the positive behaviour of looked after children in school.

12. Second to this would be teaching staff that have a mental health knowledge base to provide support to both looked after children and those teaching them. Unfortunately the proposed pupil premium and the passing of the Academies Act puts under threat both the existing support and the future support for looked after children.8 9

Foster Care and Education

13. TACT is an organisation run on social enterprise principals and surplus resources are put back into the organisation. This ‘added value’ provides a foster care service that is able to support looked after children who have additional needs.10 TACT has two ways that support the looked after children in our care for those who have needs that result in behavioural problems through their education career.

14. First, and specifically in respect of mental health needs, TACT commission therapeutic support for any child and young person in our care who has emotional or behavioural issues. Second, and more generally, there is the careful selection of foster carers ensuring the match between children and TACT foster carer is right and providing foster carers with the training they need. TACT expects foster carers to have aspirations

8 See TACT briefing on the Academies Bill and looked after children at http://www.tactcare.org.uk/data/files/resources/24/academies_bill_second_reading_committee_house_of_com mons_160710.pdf 9 TACT's response to the consultation on the Pupil Premium at www.tactcare.org.uk (forthcoming) 10 The types of child or young person that get referred to TACT by local authorities tend to be the ones that they cannot place themselves. These tend to be both older children and those with higher levels of need. 58

for the children and young people in their care that translates into very practical educational support.

15. This practical support includes getting the children to the school gate ready to learn, communicating with the school and teachers both about academic and behavioural problems, providing space and the encouragement to do homework. In short, doing the things that aspirational parents do for their children

16. TACT’s own data shows that the GCSE results of the children in TACT care are much higher than the average for looked after children, attendance rates for school are very high (98%) and absence from school of over 25 days and exclusions are very low (8%)

17. There is another crucial part of the foster care equation – that of a long term stable placement. It is a well researched and logical idea that living in a stable foster home where the child is settled for a long period of time will have positive effects on many aspects of behaviour and development. The results of longitudinal research commissioned by TACT, and carried out by Professor Bob Broad of the London South Bank University, demonstrated that in those children in TACT’s care who enjoy long term placement showed the highest level of improvement in educational attainment during the first 18 months of their placement. After this period there is still an improvement but at a lower rate.11

18. It is clear that commissioned therapeutic services when needed, placement stability, and suitably matched foster cares with the right attitude and training improve both the educational outcomes and the behaviour and attendance at school for looked after children.

Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder and Behaviour

19. In the past few years TACT has become increasingly aware of a growing problem among the population of looked after children that will, inter alia, have an impact on behaviour at school. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD) is an umbrella term that

11 Broad B Higher Aspirations Three Years On: The perspectives of young people who are fostered and their carers (working title) TACT/LSBU 2010 (forthcoming) 59

describes a number of effects that can occur in a child whose mother drank alcohol when she was pregnant. FASD is a lifelong, incurable condition. The effects may include physical, mental, behavioural and/or learning disabilities. However, with early diagnosis, and effective mitigation strategies, the impact can be greatly reduced.

20. Alcohol is a teratogenic12 compound that can readily cross the placenta. If this does happen it can cause brain damage leading to a number of disorders. These disorders range in diversity from the full presentation of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), to a set of conditions – including Partial Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (PFAS),a Alcohol‐Related Birth Defects (ARBD) and Alcohol‐Related Neurodevelopmental Disorders (ARND) – that show some, but not all, of the features of FAS.’13

21. A BMA Board of Science report on FASD says that there is no reliable evidence of the incidence of FASD in the UK,14 but much of the data on drinking habits in the UK shows a marked increase in alcohol consumption among women and therefore points towards FASD as an increasing problem. The report further says that ‘In the light of the recent increasing levels of alcohol consumption in women of a child bearing age in the UK it is reasonable to suggest that this will lead to an increased risk of heavy drinking during pregnancy and subsequently an increased risk of having a baby who is affected by pre‐ natal alcohol exposure.’15

22. The relevance of all this to looked after children is that many of the children who come into care come from families where parents regularly misuse drugs and alcohol. TACT has become increasing concerned that a disproportionate number of looked after children may have some form of FASD. This has consequences for all parts of these children’s lives including their education. As the BMA study implies, the knowledge base of FASD in the UK is underdeveloped and as a consequence there are limited clinical diagnosis and very little understanding of FASD by key professionals supporting children and children’s services including those supporting schools.

12 Teratogenic compound is a substance that interferes with the normal development of the embryo or foetus. 13 Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: A guide to healthcare professionals, BMA 2007 p1 14 Ibid p2 15Ibid p5 60

23. The net result of this is that looked after children who have FASD are misdiagnosed, with their behaviour often attributed to learning disabilities meaning incorrect behaviour modifying strategies are used. There are many behavioural characteristics which differentiate children with FASD from those with other learning disabilities. Socially, they tend to be very outgoing and engaging yet they are frequently seen by others as intrusive, overly talkative, and generally unaware of social cues and conventions. They are children who struggle with concepts like understanding money and time. Poor social judgment and poor socialization skills are common: many children crave extra attention, even if this is negative.

24. Due to their social immaturity, children and young people with FASD have difficulty establishing friendships, especially with children of the same age. There is a potential for both social isolation and exploitation of individuals with FASD. Hyperactivity is frequently cited as a problem for young children who characteristically have short attention spans. Many also have memory problems, thus creating further setbacks to adaptive functioning and academic achievement later on. Children with FASD are often on the autistic spectrum and have symptoms of ADHD. If undiagnosed, it may lead to disrupted school experiences, alcohol and substance misuse, dependant living, difficulties with employment, inappropriate sexual behaviour and crime.

25. TACT is naturally concerned that looked after children in the education system who have FASD are not getting diagnosis or appropriate support services. Further, with reference to the comments from the BMA about increased alcohol assumption among women of child bearing age, there might well be increasing incidences of FASD in the general population, with obvious impact on children in school and on pupil behaviour patterns. TACT, along with other charities, is raising awareness of FASD and also developing services for looked after children with FASD. TACT is also working with medical professionals on research into developing a robust diagnostic methodology for FASD.

26. If there is a lack of awareness of the incidence and consequence of FASD in health and social services, this is likely to be greater in education services. A teacher with a class of 30 pupils to attend to is unlikely to be aware that a child who seems to pay little 61

attention, or who is disruptive, suffers from FASD. There will be no appreciation or understanding that ‘bad behaviour’ is caused by brain damage. Punishments intended to correct that behaviour will be ineffective as the FASD affected child will not understand why they are being punished and will be incapable of altering their behaviour without appropriate interventions. TACT believes that a basic level of education concerning the nature and impact of FASD is essential for all education professionals.

Summary of Main Points

27. Looked after children often have complex mental health needs that arise from being taken into and being in care. 28. There is a lack of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services to support both looked after children and teaching staff in schools. 29. TACT as a social enterprise organisation uses surplus resources to provide services to meet the mental health needs of the children our care. 30. Careful matching by TACT of children to foster carers improves educational outcomes and behaviour. 31. Long term stable placements are essential to improve educational outcomes when it is not possible to return a child to their family. 32. TACT is concerned that Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder is a growing problem among looked after children. 33. The reason for this is that many children are taken into care from families who abuse alcohol. 34. FASD diagnosis is rare, resources available for diagnosis are insufficient and there is a lack of awareness among key professionals of the characteristics of children with FASD. 35. This means that incorrect behavioural strategies may be used. 36. Education professionals need basic training in FASD awareness. 37. Increased alcohol consumption among women of child bearing age could mean a general increase in FASD in the general school population.

September 2010

‐ 62

Memorandum submitted by Dr Jeremy Swinson Dr Jeremy Swinson Principal Educational Psychologist Witherslack Group of Schools 1 Background. I was formally Principal Educational Psychologists in Liverpool, where I had special responsibility for behaviour in schools. I am currently Principal Educational Psychologist for the Witherslack Group of School and Honoury Lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University. I have written extensively on behaviour in the classroom. My work was included in the Government White Paper ‘Excellence in Education’ (1995). My doctoral research (2005) concerned the relationship between teacher feedback and classroom behaviour. 2 Introduction It is important that when making any recommendations your committee not only considers the opinion of those in the field but more importantly considers the evidence on which those opinions are based. The basis of his submission is research I and others have carried out in classrooms and schools in this country. My research shows that the key to good behaviour in the classroom is the skills of the teacher. Good teachers are characterised by the amount of positive feedback they give to their pupils (Harrop and Swinson, 2000). Good teachers provide three times more positive feedback than censure. As a consequence the pupils tend to be ‘on-task’ more and disruption occurs less often. 3 Training Teachers We also showed, Swinson and Harrop (2005) that teacher could be trained to become more effective teachers by increasing the amount of positive feedback they provided to their pupils. This training was given to both primary and secondary teacher and contained what we called the ‘The Four Essential Steps to Classroom Management’. The fours steps were: Always make your directions or instructions to the class very clear As soon as you give any instruction acknowledge those children who are doing as they are told. Keep children doing as you have directed by circulating the class acknowledging appropriate behaviour Never ignore pupils who fail to respond to directions. Catch them early by praising children around them, redirecting their behaviour to that you want, if they 63

continue not to respond give them clear choices as to what will happen if they continue not to do as they are told. If they choose not to respond then make them aware of a range of mild, but irksome penalties or sanctions that they are choosing rather than to do the work set. In practice we found that if teacher adopt the positive approach as outlined in steps 1 to 3, then the use of sanctions and ‘tell off’ is reduced. We found that when we trained teachers to use these methods, then the rate of ‘on- task’ behaviour, that is the rate at which we observed pupils doing as they were told increased from around 77% to almost 94%. We found all teachers found it relatively easy to follow this approach. We have found this type of training is effective in all types of school, even including SEBD schools whose pupils have severe behavioural and emotional difficulties, (Swinson and Cording, 1995). 4 The Whole School Approach This positive approach to classroom management is most effective in schools where it is part of a whole school policy. A good example of this is contained in a very recent paper, Swinson (2010). All the staff in the school were encouraged to follow positive strategies in the classroom, which included the awarding of two merit stickers for good work and behaviour. These stickers were placed in the home work diary which was seen by the parents. This reward system proved popular with both pupils and indeed parents. The pupils liked it because ‘letting parents know about good work and behaviour’, has always been found to be the reward most favoured by pupils (see Harrop & Holmes, 1993). 5 The use of Sanctions or Punishments. If teachers adopt positive approaches to pupil management as is outline above there will be less disruptive behaviour. However it is important that teachers never ignore disruptive behaviour. Mild but irksome punishments that are delivered on the day of the offence work best. We found 10 minute and 20 minute detentions, which under current rules can be delivered on the day of the offence with out prior notification to the parents, were very effective. There is no evidence that longer detentions are more effective. The most effective punishment as perceived by the pupils is their parents being informed about their misbehaviour. 6 Encouraging support from parents Parents will not support schools if they feel schools are being unfair or that the school is ‘picking on’their child. We found that if schools are perceived to being 64

fair by having a clear set of values and procedures and most importantly if through use of parent letters, merit stars or sticker (see above). If the parents are made aware that their child gets rewarded for being good then they are more likely to support the school over matters of discipline when they are bad. 7 Nature and level of challenging behaviour Recent research in primary schools across the country Apter, Arnold and Swinson (2010) showed that in the over whelming majority of classroom the behaviour of the children is very good. This is backed up by recent Ofsted reports. Research by Grey and Sime as part of the Elton report (1988) showed that major incident of very disruptive behaviour involving threats or violence was in fact rare. I have conducted similar surveys in schools and found this to be the case. It would appear that what teachers find wearing is low level disruption such as talking out of turn, chatting etc. 8 The impact of challenging behaviour on teachers. Low level disruptive behaviour is wearing on teachers. It can lead them to abandon the proactive positive strategies outlined above and become much more reactive. My research, Swinson and Knight (2006) should that on the whole teachers responded much more negatively to pupils with challenging behaviour by repeatedly telling them off. This is not an approach that is likely to change their behaviour. Teachers need to be trained to be proactive and to stop challenging behaviour before it starts by adopting a positive approach. 9 The impact of challenging behaviour on schools. Disruptive behaviour of any kind prevents teachers from teaching and pupils from learning. It inevitably leads to low educational standards. Improving the behaviour of pupils in schools is probably the most effective way of raising school standards; see research surveyed by Hattie (2009) across the English speaking world. 10 Research on fixed term or permanent exclusions does not show it is very effective in changing behaviour. Similarly the effectiveness of various units, special schools and alternative provision is not strong and as Topping (1983) pointed out a very long time ago they can be a very expensive way of achieving very little. 11 Summary and recommendations My research and that of others shows: • Behaviour in schools is not getting any worse 65

• Behaviour of pupils is related to educational outcomes • Teachers can be trained to become better classroom managers, at little cost leading to vastly improved behaviour and educational outcomes • Schools can adopt school wide positive strategies which also impacts on outcomes • Rewards to children need to involve parents • Parents need to know the positives about their children if schools wish to have their support in punishments • Punishments are most effective when they are mild, irksome and given the same day (Committee should consider law on this matter) • Fixed and permanent exclusions aren’t effective in changing behaviour • Alternative provision is expensive and not especially effective. • The most effective use of resources would be in terms of staff training and support for staff in school when they are teaching. This support should be to teachers and not as present focussing on ‘supporting’ the child. September 2010 References Apter, Arnold & Swinson (2010) Educational Psychology in Practice 26 (2) 151-172 Harrop & Holmes (1993) Pastoral Care in Education March p30-35 Harrop & Swinson (2000) British Journal of Educational Psychology 70(4), 473-483 Hattie (2009) Visible Learning Routledge Gray & Sime (1988) National Survey of Teachers in Elton Report, DES Swinson & Cording (2002) British Journal of Special Education 29(3) 72-75 Swinson & Harrop (2005) Educational Studies 31(2) 115-129 Swinson & Knight (2007) Educational Psychology in Practice 23(3) 241-255 Swinson (2010) Pastoral Care in Education 28(3) 181-194 Topping (1983) Educational Systems for Disruptive Adolescents, Croom Helm

Memorandum submitted by Dominic Boddington, Respect4us

Summary 1. Developing positive behaviour in schools is a complicated process requiring a focus on individual children and their needs, great school leadership, and a motivated, committed and highly skilled staff. 2. Punishment is ineffective in changing behaviour and making schools more effective as institutions of learning. 3. Good relationships are the key to good discipline. 4. Political pressure to meet targets based on academic performance makes the job of building inclusive schools almost impossible.

About me 5. I have been a teacher since 1975 in a variety of schools and for the last two decades as a school leader in a challenging school in Norwich. I was a teacher co‐ordinator of the Norwich Area Schools’ Consortium action research project on pupil disaffection which had published outcomes. http://www.uea.ac.uk/care/nasc/TTA_Final/NASCFINALREPORT_June02.pdf 6. I have recently left the public sector to form a CIC working with secondary schools in Norwich to provide alternative education for excluded pupils and those close to exclusion. www.respect4us.co.uk

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools 7. Develop a collegiate approach 8. Emphasise the crucial importance of relationships 9. Throw out all the old clichés and folklore about teaching. School cultures often turn teachers into control freaks. 10. Shift the grip of the negative cynics who have occupied the same seat in the staffroom for years– The movement of teachers between schools should be routine as in many other countries, a reminder that schools belong to children not the people who work in them. 11. Always treat young people with respect 12. Listen to young people 13. Understand the young person’s needs and starting point 14. Involve the young person in decision making and allow them to take control of their learning 15. Individualise and personalise learning as much as possible, 16. Be non‐judgemental in discussing behaviour 17. Treat cultural differences including class cultural differences with respect 18. Model respect, politeness, tolerance and patience at all times. 19. Always be positive – “catch them being good”, notice the good stuff, 20. Make sure young people know what their strengths are, not always academic. 21. Praise, praise praise 22. help teachers to analyse their own emotions in dealing with stressful situations. Social workers always get debriefed and counselled – given opportunities to dump their stuff – it’s unheard of in teaching. 23. Be aware that there are no quick fixes. Progress towards improved behaviour requires patient, consistent practice. 24. Never give up. Make sure young people understand you will never give up on them 67

The nature and level of challenging behaviour in schools, and the impact upon schools and staff 25. In the 35 years since I began teaching, secondary schools have been transformed. They no longer use corporal punishment nor is there the ethos of the military boot camp that used to be commonplace. Teachers are far better trained, far more accountable, far less likely to be alone in a classroom with children and there are many more sources of support than there used to be. The average lesson is far more imaginative and engaging and the majority of children are making more progress with learning than ever (all the data supports this).

26. Children have changed in that time. They are mostly subject to the same media pressures and experiences as adults and as a result mature earlier than they used to. Like most adults when treated with disrespect they will respond in kind. The unquestioning obedience of children to authority is as rare as it has become in the adult world – yet some teachers still behave as though nothing has changed since the time of Dickens. Nonetheless, schools in general are happy places where children are treated with respect.

27. Most comprehensive schools have some pupils who find the school experience alien. From an early age they struggle to make progress and fall behind their peers. They learn patterns of avoidance and behaviours that enable them to maintain their self‐esteem, becoming rebels often admired and aped by their peers. In some schools they will be very few; in challenging schools serving areas of deprivation there will be many more.

28. In a secondary school with good leadership, and an energetic and committed staff, it is possible to break these patterns but there are impediments that seem to get greater year by year: 29. Curriculum ‐ The introduction of National Curriculum from 1988 did great damage to the ability of schools to provide a curriculum that met the needs of all pupils. From 2000 it became possible to pick up again the threads of the new curriculum that had been in development in the 1980s, in particular the centrality of social and emotional aspects of learning. However, this was only at KS4 and schools were and still are under immense pressure to meet academic targets. 30. Poor teaching – there are still some shockingly poor teachers in schools. There are teachers who don’t like children. There are teachers who only like teaching children who have similar manners and social skills to them. There are teachers with appalling communication skills. There are teachers with only a couple of broken tools in their behaviour management tool kit. Good teachers have an ability to form a relationship with each child as a unique individual. 31. Schools ‐ schools should be places where the needs of all children can be met. Unfortunately this has never been the case and all the trends of recent years – academies, targets, league tables, competition, 5A*‐C etc – are pressures that drive schools away from being genuinely inclusive. There are children who will not achieve academic success but are nonetheless capable of making a massive contribution to their communities and society. In the inclusive school their talents, skills and achievements would have parity with academic achievement. Yet at the moment schools where 71% of children achieve only non‐academic success are labelled as failing. There will inevitably be disaffection and behaviour problems in schools until we recognise that education is about more than examination passes, until we adopt a whole child approach to learning, and we acknowledge the centrality of relationships in pedagogy. Children know that the relationship is all important – when we discuss options at KS4 they want to know who the teacher is before deciding on the subject. We tell them that this shouldn’t matter to them but we are absolutely wrong! The subject is far less important than the relationship.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixedterm and permanent exclusions 32. Working in challenging schools I have seen it all! One becomes a little cynical when one sees the same failed strategy being adopted for the third time in twenty years. Exclusion rooms, inclusion rooms, isolation rooms, three strikes, zero tolerance, detentions, Saturday detentions. 33. The main findings of the NASC (Norwich Area Schools’ Consortium) research project on rewards and sanctions* were that rewards(including praise) were far more effective than sanctions in shaping the desired culture systems had to be followed and used by all staff or they broke down consistency was key *Shreeve, Ann and Boddington, Dominic (2002) Students’ perceptions of rewards and sanctions in Researching Disaffection with Teachers edited by John Elliott and Barbara Zamorski special issue of the journal Pedagogy, Culture and Society Vol 10, No 2 2002 pp 239-256 34. For the majority of young people disapproval from a teacher who is respected is the only sanction necessary. For serious incidents restorative justice works. Generally sanctions further damage relationships and for the most damaged young people school sanctions can never be anything but ridiculous and laughable. 35. Few schools exclude young people without much soul searching. Those excluded are almost always the most damaged children for whom it is yet another rejection confirming their own self‐view of worthlessness. The reason given is always the greater good of the majority. 36. Respect4us exists to provide schools with an alternative. We take young people who are in danger of exclusion or who are simply not thriving. Relationships are central to everything we do. We work on our young people’s behaviour, through listening and acknowledging the issues in their lives. We work with them to help them identify their own needs, help them select worthwhile projects that they want to do and we help them to construct futures for themselves. We talk with our young people about behaviours that we find unacceptable but they know our support for them is unconditional – they will never be chucked out, we will never give up on them. This work has to be small scale and done by committed staff. The ethos is that of the loving family. We build relationships and use restorative practice. There are no sanctions. We involve and share our practice with parents.

Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour 37. By the time young people are in secondary school and the school is ready to send them to Respect4us parents are very often in despair – embarrassed, angry, and defensive. We deal with behaviour issues ourselves and only when we think it might have a positive impact on the young person do we refer issues to the parent. Instead we tell them the good news. We report on progress. We find the young person’s strengths and qualities and write about them – we tell the parents, we tell the school, above all we tell the young person and then we tell them again. We make our young people proud of what they achieve with us and make them want to share it with their parents. Meetings with parents are informal and as un‐school‐like as we can make them.

How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline 38. Throughout my time in teaching there has been a deep philosophical divide between those who believe that once children have crossed the school threshold they should all be treated in the same way and those who believe that allowance has to be made for the differences in life 69

experience, social culture, learning ability and needs of children. This divide explains the contradictions between policy and practice in many schools. Like successful families schools need to be flexible institutions, able to waive rules and bend structures to accommodate the child who is different.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour 39. Where this is of the boot camp style it has little long term impact (there are plenty of examples). Provision that sets out to engage, that deals with the whole child etc etc can have an impact. Our belief in the latter led me and my colleagues to leave the maintained sector and set up an independent alternative provision. See www.respect4us.co.uk

Links between attendance and behaviour in schools 40. The causes of poor attendance are normally the same as the causes of poor behaviour. Sometimes schools give up chasing attendance because some teachers would rather not have the child present. At Respect4us we don’t give up. If the young person is not present and there is no reason we go and get them out of bed.

The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers. 41. This is all about giving teachers more weapons when what they need are more tools. Introducing these will send out a get‐tough message that might be good politics but don’t expect them to make any difference. Have the highest prison rates in Europe turned back the tide of crime in Britain?

September 2010 70

Memorandum submitted by John Corrigan, Director, Group 8 Education

This submission addresses the following point of interest to the Education Select Committee:

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools.

In May 2001 the author of this report interviewed an experienced teacher in Balmain High School,

Sydney, a school at the time in a relatively low socio-economic catchment. This teacher was on the point of retirement and was recognised by the school as an outstanding teacher, that is, one who delivered above average outcomes for pupils. When seen around the school this teacher was frequently surrounded by a gaggle of children who clearly loved being with her and she clearly loved teaching.

During the interview this teacher stated the following: “in my thirty years of teaching I have never had a discipline problem yet, in this school, there are two or three teachers whose sole objective on entering the classroom is to survive to the end of the lesson”.

This raised two questions: what was the outstanding teacher doing that the others were not? And, why were the others not doing it?

Group 8 Education has focused over the last nine years on investigating and answering these two questions in order to develop ways of assisting teachers and schools to become outstanding.

There is a sufficient body of knowledge and practice now to state that it is possible to create quite systematically a culture within schools that causes pupils to respect their teachers, to feel confident in their own abilities, to go out of their way not to disappoint or let down their teachers. In short, a culture that supports and reinforces positive behaviour.

This culture promotes higher academic and pupil wellbeing outcomes, particularly the building of resilience within children.

This culture is sufficiently different as to qualify as meeting Sir Ken Robinson’s appeal for

‘something else’ - “Every education system in the world is being reformed at the moment. And it's not enough. Reform is no use anymore, because that's simply improving a broken model. What we need … (i)s not evolution, but a revolution in education. This has to be transformed into something else.” Sir Ken Robinson 2010

71 The formal research (surveys) and action research undertaken (with more than 130 schools in

Australia and the UK) has confirmed that:

What outstanding teachers do is sufficiently rare as to be viewed as an outlier i.e. less than 10% of teachers are outstanding in this way yet on average successful adults can point to two such teachers in their own schooling who had a disproportionate impact on their subsequent success.

Few in number but a significant, long-term impact.

What outstanding teachers do is effective because it more closely meets the needs of children who in return respond by paying attention to the teacher, by feeling confident in their own abilities and by wanting to go out of their way not to disappoint or let down their teacher i.e. positive behaviour ideal for learning.

What outstanding teachers do does not fit into a currently recognisable framework so that outstanding teachers themselves cannot explain what they are doing and average teachers find it near impossible to emulate them.

When interviewed, outstanding teachers report that they developed their practice despite the system, not because of it (e.g. a particular family background, a teacher they had had whom they wanted to emulate, a teacher they had had whom they DID NOT want to emulate, a mentor early in their career who suggested this way rather than that way, etc).

What outstanding teachers do is learnable and so is teachable to most teachers and certainly teachable to teachers just entering the profession.

The research investigated what children looked for in their ideal school and found this very robust result:

“My ideal school is where …

I am safe”

I am respected by teachers”

I am listened to by teachers”

I am encouraged by teachers” my teachers are knowledgeable in their subjects”

72 Our current systems focus very strongly (and rightly) on safety, on ensuring that teachers are knowledgeable in their subjects and, through accountability measures, encouraging children to achieve.

Our current systems do not focus very much at all on pupils being “respected by teachers” and not much more on pupils being “listened to by teachers” and it is in these areas that we found substantive differences between outstanding and average teachers.

There are three main meanings attached to the word respect:

Unconditional respect upwards: no matter how a teacher behaves they must still be respected.

This type of respect was dominant in nineteenth century schooling (and society) and came to an end – more or less – by the end of the First World War (such that fascism, a political system based on this form of respect, emerged between the wars as a separate –ism). There are still a small number of teachers currently practicing who view the world in this way.

2-way Conditional Respect: if the pupil respects the teacher’s wishes then they will be respected in turn and if not, well, then some form of censure will follow. This is the dominant form that underpins our current education system (and society) and came in fully post the Second World

War. Most teachers view the world this way.

Unconditional respect downwards: despite the fact that the pupil does not know how to behave and despite the fact they cannot do the work they are still accepted, listened to and encouraged to grow. This is sometimes described as separating the child from the behaviour. Less than 10% of teachers view the world this way.

What children mean by respect is the third one – unconditional respect downwards – and it is this form of respect that is exhibited by outstanding teachers. The majority of teachers offer 2-way conditional respect to children (which, incidentally, also prejudices children from lower socio- economic backgrounds – those least able to conform – and perpetuates the “performance gap”).

There are four main meanings attached to the word listening:

73 The most superficial form (or level) is called “downloading” and this describes when we listen to someone and all we hear is what confirms our own views and beliefs (and prejudices). This level of listening is designed for the listener’s benefit.

A second, deeper level is called “attentive listening” where the listener is listening for what is different in what the other person is saying. This is useful for the listener if that difference stimulates new thinking.

A third, more profound level is called “empathic listening”. At this level the listener is beginning to see the world from the speaker’s point of view and begins to experience the same feelings that they do. This is useful, indeed, can be very useful for the speaker in allowing them to feel understood, a precursor to them being able to make sense of their own thoughts, needs, etc.

The most profound level is called “emergent listening” and at this level both speaker and listener are affected. When we experience this – and we all have – we feel an almost visceral feeling of possibility arising from deep within us. This expresses itself as a feeling of – yes, that is possible!

Or yes, I can do that! When we experience this we are changed in a very deep way.

What children mean by “listened to by teachers” are levels three and four - “empathic and emergent listening” - and it is these forms of listening that are exhibited by outstanding teachers towards their pupils. The majority of teachers listen at levels one and two – “downloading and attentive listening” but some may provide more profound levels to a minority of their favoured pupils.

Why do “unconditional respect downwards” and “empathic and emergent listening” matter to children? We know what outstanding teachers are doing differently, but why does it matter?

The answers to these questions lie within the area of neuroscience and how it informs our understanding of both the educative process and how we get the best out of people.

The process of education is one of gradually leading (latin, educare = ex + ducere) the child out of the childhood mind state (that we call the red zone) and into the adult mind state (that we call the blue zone).

This process has TWO components:

74 Engagement with interesting and challenging content to stimulate the adult, or blue zone, mind state (this is the core of our current education systems and redesigning curriculum is the first port of call when performance levels drop).

Engagement by a person to “quieten down” the childhood, or red zone, mind state (our current education systems do the opposite of this, they maintain the red zone active within children and thus within the adult – historically, this was for reasons of control, an active red zone makes us risk averse and uncreative and thus dependent on authority figures, an active red zone was controlled by the use of force in the past).

Being engaged by a person allows the child to contemplate difficult, scary or challenging circumstances without falling back into the childhood mind state or red zone (where the response would be panic or fear, an inability to see any other but a self-centred point of view and a general inability to face up to the issue).

Engaging a child in this way on a regular basis builds resilience in the child, and subsequently the adult, to be able to face up to an uncertain future whilst remaining in the adult mind state and with all their faculties available to them i.e. the childhood mind state or red zone has been “quietened down”. The explosion of executive coaching over the last fifteen years in all sectors is a direct reflection of the failure to quieten down the red zone such that for adults to perform at their best in uncertain times they need to be “engaged” by a coach.

It is in the second component of the educative process that outstanding teachers perform well and where average teachers do not. It is the combination of unconditional respect downwards and empathic and emergent listening that allows a child to build resilience, to quieten down their red zone. This is also the area that, just as with the example of the growth in executive coaching, there is an increasing awareness in both children and adults that they need to be engaged in this way to be able to face up to an uncertain future. Unconsciously, children are increasingly rejecting teachers who do not offer them this capability and embracing those teachers who do. This has started at the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum and is gradually working its way up. This rejection is reflected in increasing levels of disengagement and negative behaviour.

75 This second component of the educative process is excluded both from our current education systems and from thinking about those systems. It is only those teachers who, despite the system, have developed the key behaviours as well as a command of the curriculum who can provide both the components of the educative process that children need today.

Positive behaviour in schools can be best supported and reinforced by integrating the missing second component into our education systems by creating school cultures based on unconditional respect downwards and empathic and emergent listening. Such integration will create a transformed education system (what Cisco, and we, call Education 3.0).

Group 8 Education has found that there are two practices that we call “Observational Listening” and “Powerful Questioning” that give access to “empathic and emergent listening” and

“unconditional respect downwards”, respectively.

Both of these practices are learnable, and therefore teachable, and both can be disseminated very effectively by modelling i.e. by leaders using them with teachers and teachers using them with pupils. Outstanding head teachers can transform schools by modelling these behaviours, such is their influence on culture.

As these are practices (or behaviours) then repetition will turn them into habits and once a critical mass have these habits then it becomes “the way we do things around here” or the culture of the school.

It is thus possible to develop widely and quite systematically the key behaviours that make outstanding teachers outstanding in the classroom and thus support and reinforce positive behaviours throughout a school.

Experience indicates that it is middle leaders, rather than senior leaders, who can most readily adopt these new behaviours and transformation models taking this into account are the most effective.

To make such a shift in culture both systematic and sustainable these behaviours need to be embedded in process and the central process in a school is performance management. Current performance management systems are based on conditional respect and thus do not natively

76 support the behaviours that are key to “outstanding” performance and the creation and support of positive behaviour.

Group 8 Education, for example, has developed Pe rformance Appraisal 3.0 to provide such a central process for schools and other organisations that want to make this shift systematically and sustainably. This process is based on unconditional respect downwards and encourages empathic and emergent listening as a matter of course as it creates the conditions for middle leaders to lead and all staff to gradually adopt new practices.

To summarise:

Starting at the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum children are increasingly rejecting as broken the education system that is currently dominant (and this is observed by commentators such as Sir

Ken Robinson). Such rejection is reflected in increasing levels of pupil disengagement and negative behaviour. This will only get worse unless the systemic problems are addressed.

An education system that meets the needs of children and builds resilience (and positive behaviour) rather than dependence needs the twin components of the educative process – engagement with content AND engagement by a person.

An education system that combines both content and engagement supports and reinforces positive behaviour and delivers higher achievement and higher levels of resilience.

Those teachers who can provide both content and engagement are able to deliver superior results with minimal behavioural problems today, but such teachers represent less than 10% of the profession, currently, and are created despite the system not because of it.

It is possible to develop quite systematically the behaviours that engage children in this way such that they become the normal culture of a school.

Engagement by a person, its effect on positive behaviour in schools and the recognition of the systemic nature of the absence of one of the two components in the educative process are only just entering the debate about where our schools are heading.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by David Wright

My two eldest children are now 18 and 20 years old and are at university. During their time at our local secondary school, from ages 11 to 16, they said their biggest problem was the behaviour of other children in class. They stated that the teachers spent all their time dealing with the children who did not want to be there rather than working with those who did want to be there. Because of this the amount they learnt in lessons was limited. They both left school as converts to the old grammar school system where different children were taught in different ways.

September 2010 78

Memorandum submitted by Professor David Foxcroft, Professor of Community Psychology and Public Health, Oxford Brookes University

1. We know that poor achievement, aggression, and shy behaviour early on in childhood and adolescence increases the risk for problems during adolescence and adulthood. For example, learning difficulties in primary school often lead to depression in adolescence. Overly shy behaviour tends to lead to anxiety, while externalising and aggressive behaviours, such as disruptive acts, rule‐breaking, fighting, or truancy seem to predict later problems with alcohol and drug use, school drop‐out, delinquency and mental health problems. Given the strong link between these early risk behaviours and later problems in adolescence and adulthood, it’s a good bet that we might be able to improve children's later outcomes by intervening early on in primary school with students with learning problems, disruptive / aggressive and shy behaviour. The question, therefore, is how to do this effectively.

2. In the late 1960s in Kansas in the United States, a primary school teacher and his wife, a librarian, tried to figure out how to improve behaviour in a particularly challenging class. Using notions from behaviour theory, they developed and refined a classroom management strategy which they called the “Good Behavior Game” (GBG). This strategy, the GBG, was later tested in many different evaluation studies across the United States, with early studies showing that the GBG was able to reduce all disruptive behaviours by as much as 95% from their baseline rate. What was particularly noteworthy was the fact that children were able to cover 25% more curriculum material during the game. The highest quality and most recently published research has been led by Dr Sheppard Kellam and his team from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. From their research studies, conducted over the past 25 years and involving following up young children into their early adult years, Dr Kellam said the following:

“We found that the use of the Good Behavior game, played in first and second grade, changed the life course of children in the inner city of Baltimore. We randomly assigned the most aggressive children to classrooms in 19 schools. Then, we randomly assigned teachers to learn how to do a classroom management strategy, called the Good Behavior Game. We've followed those children for many years now. In middle school, only a few of the kids who got the game were in lifetime serious trouble. Among the kids who did not get the game, many more had lifetime serious problems."

3. The GBG promotes the following of rules, pro‐social behaviour, and peer concern for classmates by rewarding teams for maintaining behaviour standards. It effectively socializes children into the role of the student. Since it is a management strategy rather than a curriculum, the GBG is integrated into the curriculum and no additional teaching time is required.

4. To play the GBG, the teacher breaks the classroom into teams of four to seven students, with equal numbers of girls and boys and also with behaviour and learning attributes distributed equally between groups. The GBG begins with the teacher instructing children on 79

four class rules: 1. working quietly; 2. being polite; 3. only getting out of seats with permission; and 4. following instructions. These rules are precisely described and posted where they can be seen by all children. The teacher sets the game up by reviewing the class rules with children, setting a time, and announcing the start of the game. As children work, the teacher observes and places "check" marks next to the name of the team whenever a team member breaks a rule. After a set time, the teacher ends the GBG by counting the number of checks each team earned, and rewarding teams with four or fewer checks; all teams can win if they meet this standard.

5. Before the GBG is implemented, teachers model expected behaviours, instruct children on the meaning of rules, and guide groups as they work together, making sure that children understand how the rules apply in various teaching settings and formats. At the beginning of the school year, the GBG is played for approximately 10 minutes, three times a week. By the end of the year the game is played for 30‐40 minutes several times a week with the criteria for winning remaining four or fewer ticks. The rewards change over the course of the year from being tangible (such as stickers or pencils) to being more natural to classroom settings, such as extra time to read during the school day. By the end of the year the game is played at various times throughout the day and during various activities. In this way the protocol evolves over the course of the year, moving from being played at regular intervals and predictable times, with tangible and immediate rewards, to being played at more unpredictable intervals and times of day with intangible, deferred rewards.

6. The consistent application of the game in the early primary school years can have positive longer‐term effects. From three generations of randomised controlled field studies in the United States, in a long‐term research partnership between the Baltimore City public school system and Johns Hopkins University, led by Dr Sheppard Kellam, the GBG had a significant and meaningful impact on young people, especially males, from childhood through to young adulthood (aged 19‐21). This impact included significant and important reductions in a broad set of problem outcomes: reductions in medical diagnoses of alcohol and drug abuse dependency disorders; reduced anti‐social personality disorder; reduced delinquency and imprisonment; reduced regular smoking; reduced suicidal ideation and attempts; reduced use of services for behavioural, drug, emotional and school learning problems; and reduced risky sexual activity, e.g. unprotected sex. These findings were particularly strong for those males who, at an early age, were more aggressive or disruptive. Further research on the GBG in the Netherlands and Belgium has also shown that the GBG promotes positive peer affiliations and reduces child victimisation and bullying.

7. In the UK, the GBG is being tested in schools in Oxfordshire, in a collaboration between Oxford Brookes University, Oxfordshire County Council, individual schools, Johns Hopkins University and the American Institutes for Research.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Helen Earl, Educational Psychology and Behaviour Support Team Children’s Services, Cumbria County Council

1. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools; Teachers need ready access to skilled advisers with whom they can consult about behaviour.

This consultation needs to be at many levels, from early intervention to sustained, long-term input.

We need to be able to offer a perspective from outside the school, and to help them to review and monitor changes in children’s behaviour. This is not just about improving the behaviour – it is also about support for the teachers, who can easily become demoralised and overwhelmed if left to deal with this in isolation.- and families

Parents and carers, pupils and teachers all need to operate in a culture of mutual regard and the support of parents is essential for the maintenance of good behaviour.

NQTs need to have basic training in Positive Behaviour management during their training and continuing into their probationary year.- Evidence based thinking on managing behaviour

There should be on going support for school staff to regularly review and revisit the basics, by advisers ( with experience in the classroom) who can support and be competent at delivering training- develop the capacity and expertise of the school staff

The lessons learnt from previous studies and policies should not be ignored- the importance of recognising social and emotional needs and its impact on behaviour is imperative

2. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff;

This should include the impact on other pupils learning.

It is important to look at Antecedents before the challenging behaviours and what could be done to address these challenging behaviours , and not ignore the context and impact on family . it is not always ’within child’

3. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions;

Identify schools with outstanding strategies, to support other schools but these schools need to be in a similar catchment areas to the schools they are supporting.

Look at models of clusters of schools recognising the needs of their communities and working together . 81

Include approaches to the increasing number of needs of younger children age 7 and below

4. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour; Important that we do have this on the agenda,

We need to build it into the brief and activities of existing core services, rather than grafting on projects to do it. Projects come to an end, usually when funding is withdrawn, and we then lose the time and expertise to do the work.

Families need to be everyone’s business

5. How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline;

Policies need to recognise the intimate link between children’s learning and their behaviour. They should specify how that link is to be explored and used in working with the pupil.

‘Behaviour’ should never be dealt with without considering the child’s ability to understand and interpret his environment, and using his learning strengths to help him modify his behaviour.

An assessment of needs should include learning needs and possible reasons for the behaviour , rather than just looking at the behaviour

6. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour;

Alternative providers should be asked to state what their objectives are, and to evaluate pupils’ success according to those objectives.

Alternative Providers should be monitored and in Cumbria we have developed a Personalised Extended Curriculum standard and SEAL for AP toolkit to ensure the AP are fit for purpose.

The AP must have access to quality training and support, and be aware of processes just as any school or PRU as they are meeting the needs of a very vulnerable group of students.

Schools need to be accountable for the quality of this provision.

7. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools;

Any Support for schools need to understand the links and the need to work with families

Attendance issues and response needs to be picked up and acted upon quickly rather than when they become entrenched

Attendance needs to be looked within families rather than individuals 82

School staff need to develop skills to address these as they know these pupils

8. The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July.

There is a need for introducing flexibility into the notice needed for detention. However, there is a need to be sensitive about no notice detentions where such an action could be age inappropriate and make children vulnerable. We need to trust schools in making those judgements and challenge and support the schools who make inappropriate judgements

On the occasions when teachers need to search pupils, we need to be more precise so we are not opening up opportunities for accusations

Need to look at the implications of simplifying ‘restraint’ so it not only protects staff but pupils- and agreed national training programme would be welcome.

Allegations within the authority must be kept confidential until a charge is made. This needs to be more specific.

Strategic Manager: Positive Behaviour

I have 35 years in teaching, 15 years focusing on pupils displaying challenging behaviour through specific groups in schools, 12 years as a manager of a ‘tutorial centre’ now called PRU and 5 years managing the Behaviour Support Team in the authority

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Dr Richard Crombie, Specialist Senior Educational Psychologist: Social and Emotional Development

Perspective: I am an Educational Psychologist with 25 years of experience specialising in children's social-emotional development and behaviour. My PhD is entitled 'Managing Behaviour in Mainstream Schools: Changing the Culture'. These are my views, and not necessarily those of my employing authority.

Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour

For most children this is dependent on:

• Clarity and consistency • Fairness and respect • Strong, collegial leadership

This will ensure that they gain a strong sense of themselves as learners and affiliation to their school.

Beyond that there is huge scope for children - as part of the 'Big Society' agenda – to contribute within schools and communities. They are an important untapped resource, and will benefit themselves and others now and in the future, if schools can engage them in e.g. supporting the learning of others.

Challenging behaviour

This arises from three main sources:

• Response to a failure to provide the above • Culture and peer relationships • Failure to learn good enough self regulation

As a psychologist my focus is primarily on the latter. It is the foundation for understanding how children come to behave in challenging ways and for working out how best to respond to that.

Impact

Of course the impact of challenging behaviour is generally addressed in terms of teachers teaching and children learning. That is, the primary functions of schools. However, it may be more fruitful to consider it in terms of the impact on teachers personally rather than professionally. It is those personal responses that are most problematic. We need to support teachers to respond to children's challenging behaviour in a professional, not a personal, way. Feelings of frustration, failure, lack of knowledge and skills quickly lead to ill considered responses and to efforts to shift responsibility. 84

This is not to criticise teachers who are often faced with very difficult situations without appropriate training or support. Training in child development and an understanding of how children come to behave in challenging ways is crucial. As is access to high quality consultation.

Approaches

There are three essential pillars for managing children's challenging behaviour in schools:

• Understanding child development and learning processes • Establishment of appropriate, professional relationships • Clarity over responsibility, supported by a sense that everyone is doing the best they can under difficult circumstances

Beyond that it is usually not difficult to predict which children are likely to present very challenging behaviour. It is essential that everyone – the pupil, parents and staff – knows what will happen in the circumstances of a serious incident. We plan for children's learning needs; why not for the most difficult challenges teachers face?

I also wish to highlight the critical importance of attending to repairing relationships when a child is left feeling criticised, thwarted etc. This is too frequently ignored. I should like to propose, as a first step, that following a permanent exclusion the child and family is offered a Restorative Conference which has the potential to go some way towards repairing the damage done, and paving the way for the child to move on positively. It may lead to schools recognising the potential to use Restorative Approaches as an alternative to exclusion.

Special Education

SEBD frequently masks (other) SEN. Clarification of the full range of needs a child may present is dependent on good quality assessment.

Defining SEBDs as SEN is dependent on the need for differentiation. This can be in terms of pupil: adult relationships, curriculum or pedagogy.

Alternative Provision

Efficacy is determined by purpose, and I think we need to address that first. Who is alternative provision designed to benefit?

There is substantial scope for schools to develop alternative provision based on identification of pupil need. Alternative provision by PRUs should, in my view, arise from the need to take control of a deteriorating situation within a school. There is no reason why access to PRU provision could not be made available to schools on a quota basis. Schools could 'trade' such access. 85

Access to special school places should arise from parental preference, not pressure from schools. Access to residential placements should be the responsibility (in every sense of the word) of Children's Social Care and Health, as well as Education.

September 2010

Memorandum submitted by Edison Learning

1. Introduction EdisonLearning are grateful for the opportunity to contribute the Education Select Committee’s review of Behaviour and Discipline in Schools; a topic that is central to the successful operation of individual schools and to the development of a strong school system. Our response reflects the expertise of an international education organisation with eighteen years experience in the design, support and operation of schools. Our work in this time has covered many contexts and cultures across England, America and the Middle East. Many of the schools we operate or support are situated in areas of significant deprivation, frequently serving the needs of students with extremely challenging behaviour and negative attitudes towards learning. Our expertise derives from two sources: • a group of highly credible individuals in the UK and the USA who guide our behaviour and discipline strategy • A body of international research into the operation of highly effective schools, based on a 3‐year multi‐million dollar study initiated in 1992 that has been constantly updated and refreshed to reflect changing context and new thinking. 2. Executive Summary Schools that are more successful in managing behaviour tend to be so because of the nature of the ‘contract’ they establish with all students through the culture of and relationships within the school, rather than making their starting point the designing of systems and measures around exceptions. All schools should seek to move beyond behaviour management as a means to control the conduct of ‘difficult’ individuals, and instead, view it as integral component in the development of each young person. The aim should be that each student chooses to behave correctly and appropriately because it is inherently the morally correct thing to do. This can only be achieved where behaviour management and personal development are intertwined in the educational process. Research points to the fundamental importance of a positive and value led ethos in fostering commitment and individual responsibility across the school community. The creation of this ethos need not be left to chance but can be intentionally and systematically cultivated. Similarly, designing schools on a ‘human scale’ that facilitate mentoring and other supportive relationships have proven benefits for behaviour and learning. However this does not imply necessarily having small schools. Large schools can offer exciting and wide ranging opportunities and facilities whilst organising students and staff within smaller learning communities where students and staff know each other well, support one another, provide consistency and, where necessary, timely intervention. However this is not a ‘bolt on’ approach, it requires schools to fundamentally re-think how they organise and deploy staff and deliver the curriculum. As the educational system is currently organised, each school has to re-create these approaches for itself. As a result few schools capitalise on them and still fewer enjoy the full advantages that these approaches offer. At present, companies like EdisonLearning can work closely with schools, offering replicability, scalability and continued investment and support. However, with an expected increase in the number of new schools founded over the coming years, the Committee should 87

consider policy solutions to ensure that a greater number of schools have access to support in these area and can benefit from the advantages of scalability. 3. EdisonLearning Ltd: An Introduction EdisonLearning is an international company that is wholly focused on supporting improvement within the state-funded school sector. The company was a pioneer in the management and operation of Charter Schools in the USA, and remains the most significant private-sector operator of state schools in America. The schools which come under EdisonLearning’s charge represent a broad spectrum, but the majority of students served are from areas of high social deprivation with endemic illiteracy and poor attitudes to and engagement in learning. Against this contextual background, the organisation’s success in driving achievement, as independently audited by Rand1, is impressive, consistently outperforming statistical and geographical neighbours. At the heart of EdisonLearning’s work is a commitment to investment in research to inform innovation and the development of best practice. Since 1992, the organisation has repeatedly returned to the topic of behaviour, leading to the development and implementation across all our schools of highly effective practice in behaviour management. Since starting work in the UK in 2003, we have supported more than 100 schools, including some of the most challenging schools in the country. In this work, we have utilised many of our parent company’s behaviour management principles, but have continued to invest in developing best practice to meet the distinctive needs of UK schools. Our achievements in schools such as Colbayns High School, Thorpe Bay High School and Turin Grove School pay testament to the quality and impact of our approach, and allow EdisonLearning to submit this evidence as leading experts in the field of behaviour and discipline. 4. Findings from our research and our experience of supporting behaviour management in schools Research‐based Our approach to behaviour management draws on research. It is imperative that behaviour in every school and in every classroom must be of a standard such that the environment is safe and in control, thus enabling teachers and support staff to fulfil their roles as educators, and allowing all young people to learn without distraction. At the same time we believe that effective behaviour management in school should provide each individual with the personal tools and reference points that inform individual’s choices about how to conduct their lives, both out of school and in wider society. Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour To achieve these twin goals behaviour management in schools must go beyond systems of rules and punishments. Young people need to make wise decisions about their behaviour based on the values we wish to be shared in society. Unacceptable behaviour, wherever it occurs, has implications, and young people need to learn that different settings and contexts have different social and behavioural demands. This is a far more sophisticated picture than is traditionally painted of school discipline, but in a society in which the ability of the family to control the behaviour of young people has increasingly come into question, it is vital that schools play a

1 Brian Gill, Laura S. Hamilton, J. R. Lockwood, Julie A. Marsh, Ron Zimmer, Deanna Hill, Shana Pribesh (2005) Inspiration, Perspiration, and Time: Operations and Achievement in Edison Schools. Rand Corporation 88

leading role in supporting the development of responsible citizens, as well as successful learners. In a vivid chapter 2 recounting the experiences of UK Teach First graduates working in urban comprehensive schools, the authors describe a context in which staff and students are ‘drowned by numbers’ through school organisation and timetables that militate against the development of relationships that underpin discipline and consistent teaching. In recent years the notions of both smaller schools and ‘schools within schools’ have been promoted as a means of addressing these issues. Whilst there is research evidence to support this approach, too often it refers simply to spatial arrangements or a single part of a school; not the systematic reconstruction of the curriculum provision, pastoral arrangements and staff roles required to reap the true benefits of creating a school that feels familiar, supportive and of a ‘human scale’. Behaviour and attendence Behaviour and attendance is good and improves over time where students feel that they are part of small ‘familial’ groups that share common aims and aspirations and are encouraged to take responsibility for the way in which they support each other in the daily challenges of life at school. Creating this human scale and positive culture requires an extension of roles and a different pattern to the day, particularly the start. Schools that create opportunities at the beginning of every day that assist students to feel capable and able to contribute, linked to activities that motivate and stimulate them, are schools that students want to be a part of. It is, therefore, no surprise to us that those schools that create a positive start to the school day in this way are those schools that tend to ensure higher levels of attendance. Challenging behaviour Critically, students who are supported and encouraged to form trusting and secure relationships with adults that care and are accountable for their welfare, progress and achievement, are able to make more appropriate decisions about their conduct and behaviour. Those schools that invest in developing innovative roles for staff, supported through robust and quality assured methods of coaching and mentoring, are most successful in developing good quality relationships with their students. Consequently such staff are better able to avoid challenging situations and, when they do occur, better able to manage them effectively. The vital importance of school culture and ethos have been established and continually reaffirmed in school effectiveness research since Rutter et al (1978)3. A strong ethos supportive of positive behaviour can be summarised as positive beliefs about the capacities of students and shared values that are evident in relationships and the school environment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this research has been passive, describing the differences between schools rather than looking at how schools can intentionally and systematically develop such a value led ethos. A consistent feature of all the work EdisonLearning undertakes with partner schools is to begin with a consideration of the core values that the school holds dear: how these are applicable to all members of the school community and made tangible in relationships, behaviours and artefacts, and how the school will re-fresh and

2 Haimendorf, M. and Kestner, J. (chapter leads) (2009) Chapter 1: School structures ‐ transforming urban complex schools into better learning communities. In Lessons from the Front: 1000 new teachers speak up. Teach First 3 Rutter, M. Maughan, B. Mortimore, P. Ouston and Smith, A. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their effects on children. Sage 89

reinvigorate their work on these values over time. This has shown that the development and sustaining of a value led ethos does not need to be left to chance but can be intentionally developed. Staff and pupils that share in a process for agreeing and developing a set of shared values are better placed to formulate codes of conduct that promote expected standards of behaviour. Engaging parents and carers Where schools use such processes with parents/carers these codes provide powerful ways of sharing and promoting key messages about behaviour with the wider community. Parents/Carers that have been encouraged to contribute are more likely to support the school in its efforts to improve behaviour and conduct and become partners and a valuable resource to draw upon. Codes that are based on a set of shared values provide the most effective basis for rules and routines and any system designed to reinforce and reward students and staff for their appropriate behaviour and conduct. A reward system introduced without a consensus based on a set of shared values is likely to be inconsistently applied and lack impact in relation to improving behaviour. Special Educational Needs Schools whose policies and practices are underpinned and inextricably connected to these shared values ensure consistency and accountability from staff. In particular learning and teaching, SEN, anti-bullying and equal opportunities policies need to be based on a shared and common understanding of the rights and responsibilities of all learners. Systems where every learner is entitled to an individual education plan, where all staff work together and plan for a wide range of learning needs are most successful in preventing poor behaviour caused by frustration and disengagement from learning. Schools where the quality of learning and teaching is judged on its ability to meet the needs of all learners are those schools that limit the possibility of vulnerable students becoming disconnected and disenfranchised and consequently engaging in poor behaviour or truancy. Discipline policies The most effective schools working in challenging contexts embrace systemic approaches to promoting and reinforcing behaviour rather than solely relying on discipline polices whose emphasis is predominantly on consequences and imposed discipline. Systems that are designed to develop positive and co-operative attitudes and self-discipline are more effective and sustainable. Discipline policies need to and should contain protocols for addressing unacceptable behaviour, but staff who are trained to understand the reasons why some students choose to behave in the way they do and adopt management techniques that take this into account are more successful in achieving positive and sustainable changes in the behaviour of individuals over time. Schools designed around these principles and systems are schools where the students are valued and respected, and where their opinions are taken seriously. . Such structures that systematically use and share students’ views and opinions promote democratic communities in which students take responsibility for their behaviour. At a practical level the efficacy of our approach has been demonstrated in our work with schools in challenging circumstances. At Turin Grove School we were able to reduce the number of temporary exclusions by two thirds and reduce persistent absenteeism by 50% during the tenure of our management contract Case study 90

The personal impact of this approach was well illustrated by a recent story in the Northampton Chronicle4 about two year 7 students who had just left one of EdisonLearning’s partner primary schools (Cedar Road). The boys found an elderly lady’s purse with a substantial sum of money in it. They used detective strategies to find and return the purse. Referring to the work done on core values at the school the boys said, “We were taught about morals at primary school so we wanted to return it. It was a bit hard tracking her down with just a few cards so it was nice to give it back to her.”

Conclusion

EdisonLearning’s record of driving student achievement provides strong evidence of the organisation’s success in developing and implementing an approach to discipline and the management of behaviour that is both scalable and replicable. Its scalability is evidenced by the 450,000 students learning in EdisonLearning’s partner schools. Its replicability is evidenced through successful implementation in hundreds of schools across three continents, each with its own distinctive culture and education system. We believe that our success can be attributed to the following: Research: utilising research to inform our strategy and practice. Design: ensuring that the lessons of research are implemented in a systemic manner, securing scalability, replicability and sustainability Clarity, responsibility and accountability: Providing a context in which to promote and nurture good behaviour and hold individuals to account for their actions. September 2010

4 http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/gran_is_reunited_with_purse_thanks_to_boys_1_1143157

Memorandum submitted by Food For Life Partnership

Summary

1. The Food for Life Partnership has evidence and experience to show that healthy school food, a good school food culture and facilities to encourage pupils’ participation in horticulture and cookery are effective preventative measures to address challenging behaviour in schools.

2. The evidence linking poor nutrition with behavioural problems is strong. Poor nutrition and, frequently, problematic behaviour affect disadvantaged pupils most of all. Conversely, good school food has been shown to improve attendance, concentration and behaviour and therefore to increase pupils’ motivation and ability to learn. Horticulture improves participants’ sense of wellbeing and food growing encourages children to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables, improving their physical and mental health. Food education is also a simple and effective way to assist parents to address their children’s behaviour. A healthy school meal service, coupled with a whole school approach to food and nutrition education, can reduce behavioural problems in schools and equip pupils with the skills and knowledge to maintain their good mental health and behaviour throughout their adult life.

Recommendations for government

3. We recommend that the government creates policy that will: • Promote a ‘whole school approach’ to good food and food culture. • Improve access to good food for disadvantaged children. • Encourage food growing in schools. • Train the right staff and improve their understanding of food and mental health. • Educate pupils on the importance of a healthy diet for controlled behaviour. • Involve parents and families in food education. • Spend school capital on the facilities schools need to provide good food and increase take-up of school lunch. • Increase the evidence base linking good food and good behaviour in schools.

The Food for Life Partnership: an introduction

4. The Food for Life Partnership is a network of schools and communities across England committed to transforming food culture. At FFLP schools great food is matched by food education, cooking lessons, on-site food growing and improvements to the dining area. We currently work with over 2,500 schools in England and more than 200,000 meals are served to Food for Life standards daily.

5. The Food for Life Partnership is funded by the Big Lottery Fund and led by the Soil Association, bringing together the practical expertise of the Focus on Food Campaign, Garden Organic and the Health Education Trust. 92

• The Soil Association is the UK's leading environmental charity promoting sustainable, organic farming and championing human health. • The Focus on Food Campaign is the leading food education support programme for teaching cooking in the UK’s primary and secondary schools. • Garden Organic is the UK’s leading organic growing charity dedicated to researching and promoting organic gardening, farming and food • The Health Education Trust is the national charity dedicated to initiating and supporting work with children and young adults to encourage the growth of healthy lifestyles.

6. FFLP takes a ‘whole school’ approach to decision-making, involving catering staff, teachers, families and the pupils themselves; promoting personal responsibility and ownership at every stage. Headteachers report that this approach brings improvements in attendance, behaviour, attentiveness in class and attainment, benefits that are also demonstrated by research into food in schoolsi and the link between diet and behaviourii (see Appendix A for FFLP case studies).

Scope of our submission

7. Our expertise is in food, so our response will confined to commentary on school food and nutrition as a successful early intervention on pupils’ mental and physical health and its effects on behaviour. We will not be commenting on matters of discipline, and we recognise that good food is not a panacea but is at its most effective as part of a package of measures to address behaviour in schools. However, we firmly assert that improving the quality and availability of food in schools, as well as the culture that encourages children to eat the food on offer, will help address the following of the Education Committee’s concerns: • How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools, • Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, • Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour, • Links between attendance and behaviour in schools.

8. In this submission to the Education Committee we will be drawing on our experience working in 2,500 schools in England, and an extensive body of evidence linking nutrition with mental health and behaviour and good school food with improved nutrition for the pupils to eat it, particularly poorer pupils. We are also supported in our assertions by the three professional advisory bodies that support the Partnership; our Caterers’ Circle, Cooks’ Network and the Educators’ Panel of head teachers.

9. For more information about the Food for Life Partnership see: www.foodforlife.org.uk

Submission of evidence: good food promotes good behaviour in schools

10. The body of evidence linking poor nutrition with behavioural problems is substantial and increasing. All of the evidence from research into the benefits of good school meals indicates improvements in pupil health, behaviour, motivation and ability to learn and achieve. A healthy lunch and breakfast has been shown to improve attendance, behaviour and concentration. A pleasant dining experience at lunchtime improves social skills, and the efficiency brought by having enough seats or short queuing times encourages pupils to stay and eat the food. In turn, a secure customer base will promote the economic viability of the catering service and allow a virtuous circle of continued improvement to school meals, pupil health, behaviour and achievement.

Food, nutrition and behaviour

11. The brain is one of the largest organs in the body and, like our hearts, livers and other organs, it is affected by what we eat and drink. Despite the large number and generally good quality of the research studies scientific understanding of these links is far from complete, but it is clear that our diets affect how our brains are made and how they work throughout our lives. One report proposes that the changes to the food system seen in the past century may be partly responsible for the rise in mental health and behavioural problems at the same time, and its analysis of the research indicates that this diet is fuelling not only obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and some cancers, but may also be contributing to rising rates of mental ill-health and anti-social behaviouriii.

12. What is good for our body is good for our mind. The combination of nutrients that is most commonly associated with good mental health and well-being is, of course, the same type of healthy balanced diet that is widely recommended to keep our body healthy and reduce our risk of becoming obese or suffering heart disease, strokes, a range of cancers, diabetes and a number of digestive disorders and conditions. This healthy diet includes a combination of polyunsaturated fats, minerals and vitamins, and limits saturated fat, sugar and certain food additives and agricultural chemicals. There are some particularly important nutrients for brain development and function, such as polyunsaturated fatty acids (particularly the “omega three” types found in oily fish and some plants), but they can only work properly if a wide range of other nutrients are also available in the right amounts and in proportion to each otheriv.

13. An excess of unhealthy, high fat and sugar foods with insufficient healthy foods to counter their effects encourages feelings of irritability, anxiety, confusion, depression or poor memory. A healthy diet, however, can contribute to steady moods, better concentration and good general wellbeingv. These effects are critical for pupils’ success at school and in society, but much of the population is unaware of the connection between unhealthy food products and poor mental health, and even more are unaware of the effect of healthy foods on our mood and feelings and subsequent behaviourvi. In the general population, brown or wholegrain starchy carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables and oily fish are linked to improved mood and increased ability to control impulsive problem behaviour. Conversely, a diet including an excess of sugar, white starchy carbohydrates and/or caffeine (as well as alcohol and cigarettes) can contribute to a roller coaster blood sugar level, leading to mood swings and inability to control violent or impulsive behaviour. To encourage good mood and controlled behaviour people should try to keep their blood sugar on an even keel, which is why regular breakfast (preferably featuring whole grain bread or oats, which release their energy slowly), healthy snacks and a nutritious lunch are so important for pupils’ behaviour and concentration as well as physical health.

14. The evidence linking nutrition with behavioural problems is strong. The seminal study by Bernard Gesch at HM Young Offenders Institute Aylesbury in 1996-7, for instance, found a 26% reduction in the rate of recorded disciplinary incidents and up to a 37% reduction in the rate of serious behavioural offences, including violence, committed at the jail among the group of young prisoners receiving nutritional supplementsvii. (Because of the nature of controlled studies, with their need for double-blind conditions, it is often difficult or impossible to test food itself. Therefore, supplements are often used as a replacement). Moreover, separate studies have found the same resultsviii. Another recent study links high consumption of processed foods to depressionix.

15. Evidence linking horticulture with improved wellbeing has found a diverse range of beneficial behavioural outcomes that are likely to influence pupils’ time at school, including lower rates of crime, lower incidence of aggression, greater ability to cope with poverty, better life functioning, greater life satisfaction, and reduced attention deficit symptomsx. Allowing children to grow food can also encourage increased consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables, potentially improving both physical health and pupils’ ability and inclination to learnxi. Gardening is also exercise, even for the least athletically inclined, and physical activity has been shown to increase the brain’s production of 94

‘happy’ hormones like serotonin and endorphins, which improve feelings of wellbeing and motivation. Our experience at Food for Life Partnership schools is that children develop self-esteem in learning to grow their own food and learn to take responsibility for their own actions. This is particularly true in the case of disadvantaged pupils, who frequently display the most problematic behaviour.

16. Meanwhile, at FFLP schools a calm and sociable dining environment teaches children social skills, and prepares them to be receptive in afternoon classes. FFLP schools in disadvantaged areas also report an increase in attendance, as well as improved behaviour (Please see Appendix A for examples of schools in which staff report and improvement in behaviour after participation in the FFLP programme).

Food and behaviour in schools

17. A number of published studies have shown that hungry children behave worse in school, registering reductions in fighting and absence and increased attention when meals are provided.xii More specifically, two studies have found that school children who received supplements of essential fatty acids showed less aggression, compared with controls, when they were placed under stress.xiii The School Food Trust has shown that pupils in primary and secondary schools behave significantly better in class and remain more “on task” in the afternoon after a nutritious lunchxiv.

18. A majority of the studies investigated during the 2006 Food Standards Agency systematic review of nutrition and pupils’ performance noted good evidence that eating breakfast is beneficial to the performance and behaviour of school childrenxv. Schools that have breakfast clubs also report improved behaviour in the classroom. Two studies found that individuals who ate something for breakfast every day reported better mental well being than those who had erratic morning routines.xvi Immediate benefits include improved memoryxvii and a sense of calm under challenging conditions.

19. Various studies link deficiencies in particular vitamins or minerals with problematic behaviourxviii. For instance, the mineral zinc is associated with levels of serotonin, a ‘feel good’ hormone, and low concentrations of both zinc and serotonin metabolites have been shown to be associated with violencexix. A majority of children (more than 80% in some age groups) consume less than the population daily Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) of zinc and at least 10% would be considered deficient in zinc.xx

20. The links between diet and depression, particularly in adolescents, are becoming increasingly recognised. Although there is as yet no unequivocal evidence of cause and effect, populations who eat the largest quantities of oily fish report significantly lowers rates of depression, and people who suffer from depression have reduced levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood and other body tissues.xxi One study of depression in adolescence concluded: “improving understanding of the role of diet in mental health and promotion of appropriate dietary practices could significantly reduce the personal and social impact of depression in young people.”xxii

How food in schools contributes to children’s nutrition

21. Reflecting a commonly held belief, a recent long-term study has confirmed that adolescent behaviour and mental health may have deteriorated significantly and measurably over the past 25 years.xxiii Many researchers (along with parents, teachers and campaigners) have suggested that the changes in nutrition provided in school and at home over that period may be a contributory factorxxiv.

22. Until Jamie Oliver’s School Dinners campaign, central Government made no funding available for school lunches except to cover the approximate cost of pupils’ free school meals (FSMs). Compulsory competitive tendering by local authorities in the absence of mandatory food standards created a situation in which school meal providers were under 95

pressure to deliver least-cost solutions at the expense of nutrition and quality. Kitchen and dining room infrastructure suffered chronic underinvestment and in many situations the facilities disappeared altogether. The FSMs themselves were commonly reduced to a ‘brown bag’ of sandwiches of indeterminate nutritional quality. (The chart below illustrates the decline in school meal take-up in relation to changes in school and family policy over the same period).

Source: School Food Trust

23. Few children have a perfectly healthy diet in the UK, but poor nutrition affects disadvantaged pupils most of all. While many young children may be consuming too much energy and becoming overweight or obese (the UK already has the highest rate of childhood obesityxxv in Europe), many children, whatever their energy intake, are also malnourished; i.e. they are not meeting daily vitamin and mineral requirements.xxvi As Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families Tim Loughton acknowledged in the Commons, “free school meals have an important role to play in addressing poverty and inequality... [they] often represent the only nutritious meal in some children’s day”xxvii.

24. For all children, the mandatory nutrient-based standards that are now in place in primary and secondary schools (if schools adhere to them) will provide pupils with a healthy balanced meal, going a significant way to providing a healthy diet overall, and for some pupils providing the majority of a child’s daily nutrition.

25. Although Free School Meals are available in all schools for the worst-off children, without a supportive school food culture many children are stigmatised for taking FSMs. Additionally, without adequate take-up from the rest of the school a hot school meal service is not viable. Schools are not obliged by law to provide anything more than FSMs and a cold sandwich can pass for a meal. Decline in the lunch service means children eligible for FSMs may miss out on a freshly-cooked hot lunch and all the nutritional benefits that entails.

26. We know that in FFLP schools the quality of the school meal and dining experience encourage more children from all backgrounds to eat a healthy lunch, in turn supporting a 96

financially viable lunch service. At FFLP schools, great food is matched by food education, cooking lessons, on-site food growing, visits to local farms and improvements to the dining area. From enrolment with the programme to receiving their Bronze, Silver or Gold award (less than two years), meal take-up in participating schools increases on average by 23%, with our best practice schools reporting take-up of over 80%. The national average increase in take-up this year was 2.1% in primaries and 0.8% in secondariesxxviii. A whole school approach, integrating food into all aspects of school life, is the most effective way to achieve take-up and its benefits for the good mental and physical health of the school population, particularly disadvantaged pupils (please see Appendix B for examples of FFLP schools where this whole school approach has dramatically increased take-up).

27. School Food Trust researchxxix has shown that school meals are now consistently more nutritious than packed lunches. This is of particular concern for children from lower- income families, whose packed lunches contained more fat, salt and sugar and less fruit and vegetables than children from wealthier backgrounds. The Trust’s recent report into children’s eating habits found that children are more likely to try new foods during school lunch or cookery classes, in the supportive environment of their peers, than they are at homexxx. This suggests that school food is instrumental in encouraging children to eat a balanced diet, with implications for their mental wellbeing and behaviour. Parents know that they cannot maintain their children’s good food habits if they are not supported by schools. Standards at school must also set a model for the food outside of the school day.

28. Finally, involving parents and families in school lunch and food education has considerable scope to extend the benefits of healthy food and to help parents to understand and address their children’s behaviour. At Food for Life Partnership schools we encourage the participation of the whole school community, including families and local residents, spreading the benefits of healthy food and food skills. For instance the Vine Inter-Church Primary School, a multicultural school in the deprived area of Cambourne, Cambridgeshire, has an innovative approach to promoting the health of the whole school community: their ‘Healthy Food Days’ invite parents and grandparents to join the children for a healthy lunch and are always exceptionally well attended.

29. Families need the knowledge and skills to make informed food choices and by promoting a whole school approach to diet and physical and mental health Government can ensure that they have them. The majority of adults in the UK have passed through UK schools: there is no other as advantageous an occasion to influence the population’s food skills, knowledge, health and behaviour.

Recommendations for action by the Government

30. We recommend that the government creates policy that will: • Promote a ‘whole school approach’ to good food and food culture. The Department for Education (DfE) should promote to all schools the Food for Life Partnership’s demonstrably successful ‘whole school’ model of good food, food culture and education. This not only addresses the quality of food available in schools, but also encourages take-up of the school lunch; ensuring the good food is eaten and the lunch service remains economically viable. • Improve access to good food for disadvantaged children. Every child eligible for Free School Meals should be eligible for a free breakfast, and the DfE should provide additional funding (perhaps as part of the Pupil Premium) to assist schools to set up healthy breakfast clubs. Breakfast clubs, FSM and other healthy food incentives should be used as a first resort for pupils with nascent behavioural issues, as a preventative measure and before (or as well as) punishment. The DfE should promote stay-on-site policies for pupils with 97

challenging behaviour, or for the whole school population, as part of its guidance for spending the Pupil Premium. • Encourage food growing in schools: Food growing should be a part of the curriculum and funding should be made available for schools to install gardens and run after-school gardening clubs. Produce from the garden should contribute to the school lunch menu and children displaying problematic behaviour could be encouraged to participate in growing, as a means of encouraging take-up of a healthy lunch. (Schools should, however, avoid using the garden as a punishment or otherwise stigmatising participation in food growing). The DfE should encourage schools to use any existing garden space to grow food. Plans for new schools should include space to grow food. • Train the right staff and improve their understanding of food and mental health. School nurses, Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education staff, cooks and lunchtime supervisors should receive basic nutrition training, linking food to mental health. There is currently no requirement for school catering staff to receive nutrition training of any kind. Schools with an external catering provider should be encouraged to make basic nutrition training for staff a requirement of their catering contract, and those schools who provide lunch in- house should be encouraged to use the Dedicated Schools Grant to fund food skills training for their staff. When the government provides guidance for schools on spending the Pupil Premium, nutrition and food skills training for staff should be one of the recommendations. • Educate pupils on the importance of a healthy diet for controlled behaviour. Although many schools now promote healthy eating as part of PSHE, few explicitly link diet with mood, behaviour and academic performance. In addition to educating pupils in basic nutrition, school should also teach the skills in cookery and food growing to enable students to make responsible food choices for themselves and their future families. Teaching students about food and mental health can also provide motivation to eat healthily, as mood and behaviour are more immediate issues for the majority of young people than diet-related health. • Involve parents and families in food education. Parents and families should be invited to join the children for a healthy school lunch and to take part in nutrition education programmes linking diet and mental health, especially the parents of children with behavioural issues. The decline in cookery and food skills is now well documented, and many parents no longer have the knowledge to pass these vital skills to their children. FFLP schools find that frequently parents learn healthy food skills from their children. This issue is particularly significant for parents from disadvantaged backgrounds. • Spend school capital on the facilities school need to provide good food and increase take-up of school lunch. School capital funds should be spent on installing and maintaining kitchens capable of producing freshly-prepared meals and providing adequate dining facilities. No new schools should be built without kitchens and dining facilities capable of accommodating the whole school population. Capital funding should be made available for schools to renovate or maintain existing facilities, as unpleasant or inadequate dining facilities are one of the main reasons students choose to leave the school at lunchtime, frequently eating unhealthy food from the ‘school fringe’ instead of a nutritious lunch. • Increase the evidence base linking good food and good behaviour in schools. The School Food Trust, or equivalent, should further research the effects of specific nutrition and food education interventions on problematic behaviour in schools. The evidence base linking diet, mental health and behaviour is strong, and some studies have investigated pupils’ behaviour in class after participating in breakfast clubs or eating a healthy lunch. There is scope to investigate the benefits of food growing, nutrition education and increased access to healthy food to pupils’ problematic behaviour.

September 2010

Appendix A: examples of schools in which staff report and improvement in behaviour after participation in the FFLP programme

Better behaviour in class and record attendance for disadvantaged children

“The change in the children’s behaviour when we changed the food from processed to freshly prepared and organic was incredible! They’re much happier and more attentive in class now. Over 72% of the children now have school meals and even those who previously refused to eat vegetables are trying (and enjoying) them for the very first time”.

Louise Rosen, Headteacher at St John the Baptist School in Hackney, East London, where attendance is hitting its highest ever levels at an average of 96%, with many classes now reaching 100%.

Chestnuts’ Primary, Haningey, London

Chestnut's Primary School is a Food For Life Partnership flagship school in Haringey, north London, and provide children with the opportunity to grow, harvest and cook their own food at school. Cal Shaw, the head teacher, is convinced that healthy school meals and the participatory food culture have played a significant part in the improved behaviour of pupils.

“When I took over as Headteacher in September 2004 the children’s behaviour was incredibly challenging. In fact, many of the children lacked any kind of boundaries.”

Many teaching days at Chestnut's were lost through exclusions, and playground incidents were a daily occurrence. However, since bringing catering in-house and becoming part of the Food for Life Partnership, exclusions have fallen dramatically with none in the last 12 months and Ms. Shaw notes: ““Immediately, the school noticed a big difference in the quality of the food and the children’s behaviour….Now it is very rare to see fights in the playground.”

Good manners at lunchtime helps behaviour in the afternoon

Cowes Primary School on the Isle of Wight has a large dinner hall that got very noisy at lunchtime, discouraging some pupils from taking school lunch. As part of the Food for Life Partnership programme, pupils and teachers worked together to solve the problem. They came up with rules that called for good manners, good behaviour, taking responsibility and respecting others at mealtimes. Staff interacted with the children more and marks were awarded for the table with the children behaving the best. All of these minor but important changes to the dining experience have created a more sociable and pleasant atmosphere in the dining hall, making it a nicer and calmer experience for the pupils to eat their lunch. School lunch take-up increased and staff reported calmer, more attentive pupils in afternoon classes.

Appendix B: examples of FFLP schools where a whole school approach has significantly increased meal take-up

Crondall Primary School: a ‘whole school’ approach to take-up success 99

At Crondall Primary School in Hampshire food has become as important a part of the school day as science or reading, and it shows: their school meal take-up has gone up from 52.6% take-up in 2008 (when the school enrolled with FFLP) to 72.8% in 2010, an increase of 20.2%. Head teacher Megan Robinson feels that it is because the school values food so highly and uses it to teach the school day that the children themselves want to eat the school lunch.

The children themselves are involved in making decisions about what is served at lunch and grown in the school garden through the School Nutrition Action Group, which also has representatives from the local village and the children’s parents. Parents and members of the local community regularly join the school for lunch, when the children take visitors on a tour of the school kitchen and allotment. Mrs Robinson makes sure the school is always well represented in the parish magazine and the cook contributes a recipe to the school’s newsletter. All this means that parents and families are reassured about the school’s commitment to their children’s food.

At lunchtime, every pupil has a role to play. The oldest pupils help serve and Year Five are charged with helping Reception to choose food and finish their plate. The school has raised funding to invest in a permanent cookery room (which they will rent to the local community for food education classes) and children grow some produce for the lunch menu on the school allotment, making food a central part of the school day and reaping benefits in increased take-up.

Eden Foodservice, Croydon : Financial benefits of ‘whole school’ approach

Caterer Eden Foodservice employed a new member of staff to make sure their cooks maintained the Food for Life quality standard, and to promote the FFLP model to other schools served by Eden in the London borough of Croydon. They did so because they saw the immediate benefit of the FFLP programme to food quality and the financial return of the ‘FFLP effect’ on take-up.

Operations Manager Michael Calder explains that taking part in FFLP “gives the children a purpose to have a school meal”. The ‘whole school’ approach to health promotion and food education engages the children and gives them a reason to choose a healthy school lunch over other available options.

Eden Foodservice saw the immediate effects that FFLP had on the quality of food they served, and in turn the take-up of school meals, over as little as 2 ½ school terms. This justified the expense of promotion for one of their existing cooks, Suzanne Martin at Atwood Primary, whom they employed to support other Croydon schools to enrol with the FFLP.

Mr Calder is adamant that they have achieved their success with a straightforward approach to raising food quality and good service and an honest promotion of the food provenance to parents. Children will not be fooled by low quality food. Parent engagement has been key; over 32,000 flyers are sent home every time the menu changes. A cashless system in the dining hall to reduce queuing times and shield Free School Meals pupils from stigma have also contributed to an improved experience for all.

Charter’s school, Ascot, Berkshire

“The School Food Trust warns that all the time, money and effort that has been invested since 2005 in transforming school food is at risk of being wasted unless school canteens work efficiently and are appealing environments for children. 100

Charters has seen the number of pupils regularly eating a hot dinner at lunchtime increase from less than half in 2006 to somewhere between 60% and 70% now. But, Vanessa Stroud, business manager at the 1,600 pupil school stresses, the food at Charters is only part of the explanation for the big jump in the number of children opting to eat in the canteen. Changes in the dining area itself and in the organisation of the school day have been just as important, she says. In 2004, the school introduced staggered lunchbreaks to help its 250-capacity canteen cope with the number of pupils who even then wanted a hot lunch. Thus there are now three half-hour slots for lunch, starting at 11am. That's earlier than in most schools, but a necessity if Charters is to satisfy demand.

Charters has also spent about £50,000 over the last five years, improving both its canteen and its kitchen. Replacing old tables with new folding tables and realigning the seating layout means the canteen now has the capacity to feed 300 pupils during each lunch sitting, while new ovens have speeded up food preparation”xxxi.

i For instance, www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/research/research-projects ii “The Links Between Diet and Behaviour: The influence of nutrition on mental health” Report of an inquiry held by the Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum, January 2008 iii “Changing Diets, Changing Minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour” Courtney Van der Weyer, Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. (2005) iv For a fuller discussion on the effects of diet on mental health and behaviour, see for instance: “Feeding Minds: the impact of food on mental health” Mental Health Foundation (2006) The report can be found at www.mentalhealth.org.uk. v “Feeding Minds: the impact of food on mental health” Mental Health Foundation (2006) and “The Links Between Diet and Behaviour: The influence of nutrition on mental health” vi “Feeding Minds: the impact of food on mental health” Mental Health Foundation (2006) page 37. vii Gesch B et al. Influence of supplementary vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids on the anti- social behaviour of young prisoners, British Journal of Psychiatry 2002; 181: 22-28. See also the Natural Justice website, www.naturaljustice.org.uk viii S. J. Schoenthaler, S. Amos, and W. Doraz et al, "The Effect of Randomised Vitamin-Mineral Supplementation on Violent and Non-Violent Antisocial Behaviour among Incarcerated Juveniles," Journal of Nutr and Enviro Med 7 (1997). Schoenthaler and Bier, "The Effect of Vitamin-Mineral Supplementation on Juvenile Delinquency among American Schoolchildren: A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial." ix The British Journal of Psychiatry (2009), 195, 408-413 “Dietary pattern and depressive symptoms in middle age” Akbaraly, T; Brunner, E; Ferrie, J; Marmot, M; Kivimaki, M; Singh-Maoux, A. x ISHS Acta Horticulturae 639: XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Expanding Roles for Horticulture in Improving Human Well-Being and Life Quality. “Horticulture, wellbeing and mental health: from intuitions to evidence” Kuo, FE., 2006 xi Evidence from reviews by, for example, Garden Organic and the Food Policy Unit of Defra. xii For instance, the following three studies: J. M. Murphy et al., "The Relationship of School Breakfast to Psychosocial and Academic Functioning: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Observations in an Inner-City School Sample," Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152, no. 9 (1998). J. M. Murphy et al., "Relationship between Hunger and Psychosocial Functioning in Low-Income American Children," J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 37, no. 2 (1998). R. E. Kleinman et al., "Hunger in Children in the United States: Potential Behavioral and Emotional Correlates," Pediatrics 101, no. 1 (1998). xiii “Changing Diets, Changing Minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour” Courtney Van der Weyer, Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. (2005) Page 31 xiv School Food Trust, ‘School Food and Behaviour in Primaries” and “in Secondaries” (2009) www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/research/research-projects xv Summerbell C et al. A systematic review of the effect of nutrition, diet and dietary change on learning, education and performance of children of relevance to UK schools. 2006 (FSA Project Code: N05070). xvi A. P. Smith, "Breakfast and Mental Health," Int J Food Sci Nutr 49, no. 5 (1998).

101

A. P. Smith, "Breakfast Cereal Consumption and Subjective Reports of Health," Int J Food Sci Nutr 50, no. 6 (1999). xvii D. Benton, O. Slater, and R. T. Donohoe, "The Influence of Breakfast and a Snack on Psychological Functioning," Physiol Behav 74, no. 4-5 (2001). xviii The Links Between Diet and Behaviour: The influence of nutrition on mental health” Report of an inquiry held by the Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum, January 2008. xix The Links Between Diet and Behaviour: The influence of nutrition on mental health” Report of an inquiry held by the Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum, January 2008. Page 25 xx Ibid xxi Op. Cit. Page 26 xxii Bamber, D. J., Stokes, C. S. and Stephen, A. M. (2007), The role of diet in the prevention and management of adolescent depression. Nutrition Bulletin, 32: 90–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 3010.2007.00608.x xxiii S. Collishaw et al., "Time Trends in Adolescent Mental Health," J Child Psychol Psychiatry 45, no. 8 (2004). xxiv “Changing Diets, Changing Minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour” Courtney Van der Weyer, Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. (2005) xxv www.foresight.gov.uk/OurWork/ActiveProjects/Obesity/Obesity.asp xxvi National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2010). www.food.gov.uk/science/dietarysurveys/ndnsdocuments/ xxvii Hansard, Free School Meals debate, 30th June 2010, 10.46am. www.parliament.uk xxviii School Food Trust, Fifth Annual Survey of School Meal Take-up in England, July 2010 www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/fifth-annual-survey-of-take-up-of-school- meals-in-england xxix www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/school-cooks-caterers/reports/school-lunch-versus-packed-lunch- evidence-of-compliance-with-school-food-standards xxx ‘School food helps fussy eaters try new food’, Survey, 2nd September 2010. www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk/news-events/news/school-meals-help-fussy-children-try-new-foods xxxi “Healthy School Meals Win Over Secondary Pupils”, Denis Campbell, Guardian newspaper, 10th August 2010. www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/10/healthy-school-meals-attract-pupils

102 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.

103 September 2010 104

Memorandum submitted by The National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE)

1. The National Association of Social Workers in Education (NASWE) was founded in 1884 and is the only association representing staff in the education welfare service (EWS) across all grades. The association has no paid officers and is run by its members for its members and has membership across the UK.

2. This NASWE submission to the House of Commons Select Committee inquiry into behaviour and discipline in schools will focus on one aspect of the inquiry, the links between behaviour and attendance and may be summarised as follows:

• There are strong common causal factors between poor attendance and disruptive behaviour • That more than 90% of cases currently coming to the attention of the EWS are resolved without the need for enforcement action in the courts. • Interventions should be based on a thorough assessment of the causes of poor attendance and then effectively targeted at children and young people for whom the impact on future life chances will be greatest. • That the Education Supervision Order (ESO) is an under used tool that should be extended to cover poor behaviour as well as attendance where this has been a serious barrier to education. • The threshold for statutory involvement by an education welfare officer (EWO) has historically been relatively low compared with other services such as social care or youth offending. Deteriorating attendance, punctuality and behaviour can be an early warning sign of difficulties in a family and present a valuable opportunity for early intervention. • Schools should not be expected to deal with the impact of the raft of difficulties facing some families without access to sufficient support from statutory services. Background

3. The EWS has existed in some form since the inception of compulsory education. The school board (precursor to the EWS) highlighted the range of barriers to school attendance;

poverty, mental and physical ill-health, domestic violence, alcohol and drug misuse and child cruelty (Williams et al 2001).

4. These barriers or indicators remain and young people grow up to reinforce the cycle of deprivation and enduring social exclusion. These indicators are equally applicable in predicting poor behaviour. 105

5. A poor educational experience can be both a cause and an effect of social exclusion. The work of the EWS presents an early opportunity to provide help and support for families at an early stage. See table 1.

Table1. The links between poor attendance at school and multiple disadvantage. (Extract from Early Intervention- a New Opportunity for Education Welfare, 2010, NASWE)

Outcome Evidence Source ‘In some cases, pupil absence from school can be an Extract from National Audit Office -Improving Stay Safe indicator of child protection issues. The report of the school attendance in England (2005). Victoria Climbié Inquiry highlighted a considerable Stationery Office. number of concerns including the importance of social services investigating the day care arrangements of children not attending school. Schools that we visited considered that tracking the attendance of some pupils was crucial in maintaining a record of pupils at risk and in enabling schools and local authorities to identify possible problems’. ‘Only 13% of persistent truants achieved 5 A*-C at Youth Cohort Study and longitudinal study of Enjoy & GCSE compared with 67% of those who never young people in England 2007. Achieve truanted.’ ‘Statistical analysis of school attendance records Understanding truancy-Links between shows that as the level of absence increased attendance truancy and performance. attainment decreased. However there is considerable Malcolm H, Thorpe G, Lowden, K (1996) variation among schools and the findings of this SCRE. research cannot take into account factors other than attendance on attainment. Explained absence is comparable in its effects with unexplained absence.’ Persistent truants are more likely to smoke, drink, McAra, L (2004) Truancy, School Exclusion Be Healthy take drugs, be sexually active, all factors that have and Substance Misuse- quoted in NPC clear long-term health risks. Report Misspent Youth

There is a direct correlation between lower educational NPC Misspent Youth (2007)-Feinstein cited achievement and the incidence of health issues in DFES (2003) Education and Skills: The including obesity, depression, respiratory problems, economic benefit. lack of exercise. ‘Excluded children and persistent truants risk Absence from School: A study of its causes Make a underdeveloped social skills, which can prevent then and effects in seven LEAs. Malcolm H, Positive from holding down jobs and forming relationships, they Wilson V, Davidson J, Kirk S. The SCRE Contribution frequently struggle to make friends.’ Centre, University of Glasgow . DfES 2003 Research Report RR424. Truants are both more likely to commit crime and to Stevens, A, Gladstone B (2000) Learning not become the victims of crime. Being in school reduces Offending: Effective interventions to tackle the opportunities for criminal behaviour. Poor youth transitions to crime in Europe. RPS attendance through exclusion or truancy increases the Rainer likelihood of getting poor qualifications and becoming unemployed, both well-known predictors of crime. 65% of teenagers who truant once a week or more self report offences compared to 30% of their peers. 75% of homeless teenagers had either been excluded SEU Report Rough Sleeping 1998 (based on Economic from school or had been persistent truants. CentrePoint study.) well-being 27% of persistent truants in year 11 end up NEET Youth Cohort Study and longitudinal study of compared to just over 8% of all young people. young people in England 2007.

Is all absence the same?

106

6. NASWE is committed to the promotion of regular school attendance for all children, and young people of compulsory school age; however the extent, origin and impact of poor attendance is not the same for all children. Truancy is a complex issue with potentially multiple causes which are often dynamically interactive.

7. Low level absence is best dealt with by schools through effective whole school policies including clear information to students and parents, rapid follow up and attention to aspects of the curriculum, effective teaching and learning and effective anti bullying policies.

8. For some vulnerable young people the root causes of poor attendance and behaviour may lie in difficulties at home, many of which will be complex and concern parental needs that are unmet - these are the children who should concern us most as it is likely that they will have a range of other needs which will impact negatively on many aspects of their lives (see table 1 on page 2). It is unrealistic to expect schools to tackle these issues without adequate support but it is essential that schools are kept fully involved. Teachers have a unique relationship with children and their knowledge is an important contribution to any assessment.

9. Many schools employ non-teaching staff to support school attendance. Whilst we recognise the valuable role that they play the statutory enforcements duties held by LAs are generally delegated to the EWS who would still be required to intervene where the schools efforts have failed.

10. This is a specialist task and schools should expect an appropriate level of support from the local authority with sufficient EWOs with appropriate skills to support them in educating vulnerable children and young people.

11. The EWS is unregulated and whilst many officers are highly skilled and highly regarded by schools there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that this is always the case.

12. Recent data obtained by Children and Young People Now magazine revealed that there are currently 2,214 EWOs in England. EWO:Pupil ratios vary considerably across the country from 1: 500 to 1: 18,000. Latest DFE statistics tell us that there are 208,380 persistent absentees. The numbers of EWOs is likely to decrease as spending constraints take effect. (CYPN 20th April 2010)

13. We recognise that demand will vary in different parts of the country and would not necessarily want a nationally agreed pupil : EWO ratio however it would be useful to have some guidance on what would be an appropriate minimum level of staffing to meet statutory duties.

Responses to poor attendance

14. The current legislative framework on school attendance is complex and its application variable and in some cases arbitrary. It is a mixture of provisions 107

located in criminal and child care law which may be used singularly, consecutively or in some instances concurrently.

15. Recent years have seen a significant increase in the number of parents being prosecuted in the criminal courts because of their child’s poor attendance.

16. Figures show a parent is sent to prison every other week in term time for failing to ensure their child goes to school. (Guardian 2009). A jail sentence is a very costly intervention- its efficacy is as yet unknown. The data we currently have in relation to the effectiveness of these punitive approaches suggests that they are not effective, either in improving attendance in a sustained way or as an effective deterrent (Zhang 2004 & 2007).

17. Using enforcement measures is sometimes necessary – but this relies on high-level assessment and intervention skills. Strategies that rely on establishing systems and pre-determined processes can be unhelpful when they are used to replace, rather than support, skilled and professional judgements. Women (as single parents) are 3 times more likely to face prosecution for failing to ensure their child’s regular attendance than men. (Kendall et al 2004).

Case Study ‘Terry’*

Terry is in year 10 and last year he completely stopped going to school. His mother is the victim of serious domestic violence from Terry’s father who has also turned against Terry believing he was siding with his mother. He has been sending abusive text messages to his son. Terry is devastated by what has happened. When the EWO first became involved Terry tried to smash up his room and set fire to his school uniform. At this stage neither Terry nor his mum felt able to speak about their situation. Because of Terry’s protracted absence the EWS arranged a formal meeting to clarify the authority’s intention to take enforcement proceedings. This acted as a catalyst for the family and despite proving very difficult to engage initially, Terry, with the help of a skilled EWO began to speak about his difficulties. Terry began to attend school again and despite some ongoing issues with his attendance and behaviour he remains positive about his future. The EWO working closely with the school has secured day release at college and a work experience placement. This would have been out of the question the previous year.

*Case studies in this submission have been previously used in the NASWE document Early Intervention-A new Potential For Education Welfare. They are real cases supplied by NASWE members.

What kinds of families do Education Welfare Officers work with?

18. Long before the integration of education and children’s social services, the EWO worked across the two major systems. EWOs do not have the luxury of declining to work with young people and parents who may not want to cooperate.

108

19. NASWE commissioned Independent consultants who undertook a matching needs and services audit to gain a picture of need among EWS clients. Key findings from the audit may be summarised as.

• All four agencies are working almost exclusively with children at levels 2 and 3. • 37% are judged to have reached the significant impairment threshold • More than a third of the children have emotional/mental health problems • 25% of their parents have mental health problems • 22% of children have a parent who misuses drugs and/or alcohol

20. It is clear that EWS in all four areas are working with children with serious and complex needs and there is little difference across the four samples:

21. The study showed that in 65% of cases needs were believed to have been fully or partially met, largely by the EWS. Needs were least likely to be met where it was in relation to parental mental health, trauma, much improved care at home and/or problems with adult/child relationships.

Poor attendance and behaviour- A barometer of family well-being.

22. Deteriorating attendance and behaviour at school are indicative of deeper issues and are a good barometer of family well-being. Truancy can be a complex behaviour; symptomatic of a range of different factors within schools, communities and families, which in many cases are dynamically interactive.

23. Whilst NASWE fully supports the notion of parental responsibility the current legislation has its roots in an era when young people left school at an earlier age. This ‘extension’ of adolescence is not without problems and it is no coincidence that the majority of parental prosecutions concern the parents of teenagers. To deny that young people can and will make decisions for themselves is naïve and an emphasis on an outdated notion of absolute parental authority is unlikely to resolve the issue. It is our experience that many young people who are persistently absent from school are not necessarily beyond parental control in other domains of their lives.

24. The EWS also works with young people who are very vulnerable but do not yet meet thresholds for other statutory interventions, this will include young people who are neglected, at risk of criminal behaviour, harming themselves through reckless behaviour, early parenthood, substance misuse and mental health difficulties (See case study ‘Peter’ on page 6). Where parents and young people are unwilling to engage, the EWS may be the only agency where thresholds for statutory intervention have been reached and do not rely entirely on consensual engagement by the young person or their parents.

25. It is vital that those implementing statutory interventions have high level assessment skills in order to plan and deliver appropriate and targeted interventions that have a greater chance of success. 109

26. We believe the EWS role should be strengthened in this area and that existing interventions, particularly in regard to Education Supervision Orders (ESOs)1 should be broadened to include vulnerable young people whose education is severely interrupted, whatever the reason.

Case Study ‘Peter’ Peter attended and achieved well in primary school. His attendance did not become and issue until he went to secondary school. His mother has long term issues with drug addiction and poor mental health and despite her best intentions is unable to be the parent Peter needs. There was no recent social services’ involvement in respect of Peter. Some support was offered at a local Children’s Centre regarding his younger brother. Peter has been involved in some extensive cannabis use, which is believed to have contributed to his mental health difficulties. Peter’s mother shared her growing concern for her son’s mental health with the EWO. Peter refused to cooperate psychiatric outpatient appointments.

Unable to cope with Peters deteriorating mental health and consequent challenging behaviour he went to live with this father who also has ongoing mental health difficulties. This quickly broke down and Peter assaulted his father. His mother did not wish him to return home and he was effectively homeless. The EWO, fearing for Peter’s well-being both in terms of his education and mental health applied for an ESO. This effectively put Peter and his parents under the local authority’s supervision for the remainder of Peter’s education. A condition of the ESO was for Peter to attend his psychiatric out patient appointments. His mental health had deteriorated to such an extent it was felt inappropriate for him to return to school but he was provided with tuition.

When Peter was made homeless the EWO intervened on his behalf and referred the matter to social services who accommodated him in a local hostel with minimal support. The EWO was the only person remaining in frequent and regular contact with Peter, his psychiatrist and both his parents. With skilled negotiation she managed to persuade his father not to press charges for the assault and facilitated reconciliation. She also supported Peter to maintain contact with his mother and younger brother. Peter got the psychiatric care he needed, attended all of his tuition sessions and subsequently moved on to further education and training. He now lives independently in the local area and maintains a positive relationship with his family and has his cannabis habit under control. Peter recently told the EWO that without her intervention he would probably be dead.

!Unexpected End of Formula 27. There is a huge untapped potential to meet that gap between identified needs and children in need thresholds making a significant contribution to early intervention. It is however, vital that the primary focus of the EWO is on securing education.

28. In light of the above considerations we recommend that that there is review of the EWS role with a view to:

1 An ESO is a provision under Section 36 of the Children Act 1989 that places a child of school age who is not attending school regularly under the supervision of the local authority initially for a period of 12 months. The purpose of the ESO is to work in partnership with school child and family to strengthen parental capacity and improve school attendance. During the life of the ESO both parents and child may be given directions. The application is heard in the family court.

110

• Greater clarity and understanding of the role and its overall contribution to the welfare of children and young people and its role in early intervention. • Ensuring that the skills, knowledge and use of statutory powers available to the EWO particularly Education Supervision Orders can be fully exploited as part of a targeted early intervention service • Ensuring that EWOs have the skills to make high level assessments of the causes of poor attendance and are able to better target interventions. • Ensuring that schools have sufficient EWO resources to undertake statutory duties in relation to attendance.

September 2010

References

Guardian.co.uk Thursday 12th February 2009

Kendall S, White R, Kinder K, Halsey K, Bedford N (2004) School Attendance and the prosecution of parents: effects & effectiveness of parental prosecutions. Final report (LGA Research report 2/04) NFER

NASWE (2010) Early Intervention-A new Potential For Education Welfare

Pritchard, C & Williams R (2010) Measuring Social Work. Professional Social Work, June 2010

RyanTunnardBrown (2008) ‘An audit of the needs of 197 children in touch with education welfare services in 4 local areas.’ NASWE

A. Susan Williams, Patrick Ivin & Caroline Morse (2001). The Children of London- Attendance & Welfare at school 1870-1990. Institute of Education

Zhang, M (2004) Time to change the truancy Laws? Compulsory education: its origin and modern dilemma. Pastoral Care June 2004

Zhang, M (2007) School absenteeism and the implementation of truancy related penalty notices. Pastoral Care 2007

111

Memorandum submitted by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England

1. The Role of the Children’s Commissioner for England

1.1 The role of the Children's Commissioner was created by the Children Act 2004, to promote the views and interests of children and young people from birth to 18 (up to 21 for young people in care or with learning difficulties). We do this with regard to the United Nations Convention on the rights of the Childi, and with a particular emphasis on those children and young people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to have their voices heard.

1.2 We seek to make sure that children and young people are actively involved in shaping all decisions that affect their lives; are supported to achieve their full potential through the provision of appropriate services; and live in homes and communities where their rights are respected and they are loved, safe and enjoy life.

1.3 We use our powers and independence to ensure that the views of children and young people are routinely asked for, listened to and that outcomes for children improve over time. We do this in partnership with others, by bringing children and young people into the heart of the decision-making process to increase understanding of their best interests.

1.4 Young people in England spend around a third of their waking hours at school. Their education is an enormously important part of their everyday lives, as well as being a major determinant of their future life chances. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner therefore sees ensuring that the education system is meeting the needs of young people as a high priority for our work.

1.5 More specifically, within education, we are focusing on four areas of policy:

• Gathering children and young people’s views on the effectiveness of teaching in their schools, and feeding these views into the ongoing policy debate on how best to improve teacher quality;

• Ensuring fairness in the admissions system, and how best to use the statutory code on admissions to close attainment gaps between different demographic groups;

• The fairness and transparency of the system for exclusions from schools, and the efficacy of provision for excluded pupils; and

• The engagement of young people in the management of their schools, and how 112

best to encourage this.

2. Commissioned Research

2.1 In order to gather evidence on the views of children and young people on the priority areas set out above, we have recently commissioned research from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). NFER will be taking the views of a representative sample of children and young people across England on a number of issues, including the issues of behaviour and discipline in schools. We expect to receive their final report in December 2010. We would be happy to share this with the Committee when it is complete, and would welcome a discussion with the Committee at this stage.

3. Statement of Principles

3.1 In preparing this evidence, we are required to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Specifically, we believe that the articles of the Convention of most relevance to this area of policy are Article 3 (“The best interests of the child must be a top priority in all actions concerning children”); Article 12 (“Every Child has the right to say what they think in all matters affecting them, and to have their views taken seriously) and Article 28 (“Every child has the right to an education. […] Discipline in Schools must respect children’s human dignity”). The evidence below has been drafted with this in mind.

3.2 In our view, the key factor in discussing behaviour and discipline in schools is how best to ensure that every child’s right to an education is balanced with the child’s responsibility to behave in a way which does not damage the education of others.

3.3 Schools should be safe, orderly environments for all the members of the school community. Every member of this community has a right to expect this, and a responsibility to make it happen. each member of the school community has both a right to expect to be treated with respect by all others, and a responsibility to show respect. Disruptive behaviour must be managed effectively by teachers for the good of the majority. In exceptional cases this will require the removal of a small number of children from mainstream education. However, we believe that this must always be a last resort, and that the children who are excluded from schools retain their right to an education. The proposals we make below are based on this set of principles.

3.4 In responding to this call for evidence, we do not propose to address every point 113 raised by the committee. Rather, this submission will address those issues where we have evidence of the views of children and young people, or where we feel the views of young people may have particular relevance to the inquiry.

4 The scale of the issue

4.1 It is important at the outset to assess objectively the extent to which behaviour and discipline in schools is a problem requiring a national policy response. It is dangerous to rely on anecdote or media reporting in doing this. Media reporting will inevitably focus on the newsworthy or sensational, and often does not have any interest in placing individual stories in context, other than to create a narrative which backs up the general editorial line of the news organisation on "the youth of today".

4.2 Equally, it would be entirely possible to produce convincing reports based on anecdote/individual experience (for example from teachers) to argue both for and against the idea that discipline in schools is a substantial problem.

4.3 This is important because there is a need to ensure that any policy response aimed at improving behaviour is proportionate to the magnitude of the issue.

4.4 Evidence from Ofsted inspections suggests that behaviour in state schools in England is "good" or "outstanding", in over 75% of schools inspectedii. Given that Ofsted disproportionately inspects schools which have previously given cause for concern, or which face challenging circumstances, it is likely that the figures across all of the school population will be even more encouraging. This trend is likely to be exacerbated in future, as Ofsted is expected to focus almost exclusively on lower performing schools. It will therefore be important to ensure that other measures of behaviour (and, indeed other metrics of school performance at a national level) are available.

4.5 Moreover, research commissioned by DCSF in 2008 showed that 94% of parents are satisfied with their child's school, with 74% being either "very" or "extremely" satisfied.iii While 37% of those who were dissatisfied with their child's school cited behavioural issues as the reason, this only represents 2.2% of the total sample. The overwhelming majority of parents do not see behaviour in their child’s school to be a significant problem.iv.

4.6 Finally, rates of exclusions from school are low and have been falling consistently for several years. The most recent DFE figures show that in 2008/09, the number of permanent exclusions in school fell by 19.4% to 0.09% of all pupils (i.e. 9 pupils in every 10,000)v. The number of fixed term exclusions also fell, from 326,000 to 304,000. Almost 114 all (97%) of fixed term exclusions were for periods of less than a weekvi.

4.7 None of this is to say that behaviour in schools is perfect, or to say that nothing can or should be done to improve it. On the contrary, as set out above, it is in the interests of all young people to be able to learn in an orderly and stable environment, and the education system as a whole should do all it can to achieve this. The issue of bullying in schools, for instance, is one which the minority of young people who are victims find extremely distressing, and on which much more needs to be done by schools. However, the evidence above does point towards a situation where behaviour in most schools is good most of the time, and where seriously unruly young people - those who are then permanently excluded - are in a very small minority.

4.8 We would therefore strongly urge the committee to make recommendations which are proportionate to the scale of the issue, and to argue that policy should not advocate a punitive approach based on a popular perception of schools which may not be supported by evidence. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner works to challenge negative perceptions of young people, particularly where they are not supported by evidence. We are constantly seeking ways to work with media outlets to address these misconceptions.

4.8 Above all, as we argue below, we believe that the use of exclusions must remain a last resort; that the processes for its use be fair and transparent, and that there is a right of appeal for all young people who are excluded from school.

5 New powers for teachers

5.1 On the specific issue of extensions to teachers' powers to search pupils, and on the use of physical restraint, we believe that caution should be used in taking these new powers forward. Guidance should be clear that these new powers - particularly those relating to physical restraint, are intended only to be used as a last resort. Moreover, we feel it should make a distinction between teachers intervening to prevent pupils harming each other (or members of staff), and other forms of restraint, which require specialist training, and are only suitable for use in very extreme circumstances, by suitably qualified (and pre-approved) staff. Clarity is needed to ensure that teachers are reassured that they will not lay themselves open to action for intervening to protect a pupil or a colleague.

5.2 As a general rule, teachers should not be expected to place themselves in situations where they feel their personal safety is at risk. Violent confrontations should, where appropriate, be treated by teachers as public order offences (as they would in their 115 lives outside the classroom), and if necessary they should involve the police.

5.3 In practice, we expect that effective teachers will rarely if ever need these powers, as they will be able to prevent classroom situations from escalating to the point where they are required. New rights for teachers should be accompanied by new responsibilities. Records should be kept of when teachers have made use of these new powers, with an expectation that head teachers monitor their use to discourage ineffective teachers from becoming over-reliant on them. We would also strongly welcome clear guidance on what pupils can, and cannot, expect from teachers in relation to these new powers. We believe that this will benefit both teachers - who will be able to exercise these powers without fear of malicious allegations - and pupils, who will have clarity on what teachers can, and cannot, lawfully do.

5.4 We also have concerns with regard to the ending of the requirement to give 24 hours notice for detention. We understand the intention of this change – both in terms of making detention a more meaningful sanction for teachers, and in more closely linking the behaviour and the punishment. However, we fear that it may have unintended consequences which could reduce its effectiveness. As we set out above, we believe that behaviour management is best served by creating an atmosphere of mutual respect between all members of the school community. We feel that designing sanctions for poor behaviour (such as this one) which are explicitly designed to inconvenience pupils and their families seriously risks undermining this atmosphere of respect.

6 Effective practice

6.1 The schools who are most successful in behaviour management share a number of characteristics:

• They have a consistent “whole-school” approach to the issue: strong school leadership ensures that disruptive behaviour is dealt with consistently by all teachers.

• Communication of behaviour management systems to all members of the school community is clear and effective;

• Rules are reasonable, and are often drawn up in consultation with the students. They are strictly and consistently enforced, while taking account of individual pupils’ needs. 116

• Behaviour management tends to be “assertive”, based on a system of rewards for good behaviour and sanctions for poor behaviour, rather than solely punitive.

6.2 There is substantial evidence of the effectiveness of this approach,vii which is reflected in its promotion in guidance issued to schools by the (then) DCSF in 2007viii.

6.3 We also welcome the continued expansion of UNICEF’s programme of “Rights Respecting Schools” in the UK, and feel that their work should be given attention by the Committee. This programme of awards started in 2004 and is running in more than 1600 schools across the UK. It gives school leaders support in defining a clear set of values – not just rules - with the full involvement of the school community. The programme uses the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) as the values framework that enables this to be achieved.

6.4 Headteachers involved in the programme say that it can help shape the ethos of the school and unifies what can often be seen as a range of disparate educational initiatives and government priorities in all UK jurisdictions; the global dimension, SEAL (social and emotional aspects of learning), sustainable development, and community cohesion. However, although this was not one of the reasons for developing the programme, it also leads to improved behaviour in the schools which have taken part. An independent evaluation of the Rights Respecting Schools Programme, undertaken by the University of Sussexix, found that it improved relationships between pupils and staff, improved behaviour and led to a reduction in both truancy and exclusions in the majority of participating schools.

6.5 We believe that there is considerable merit in studying the impact of this programme further as a means way of improving behaviour.

7 Exclusions System.

7.1 Permanent exclusion from school is a significant life event for a young person. While it will sometimes be necessary to prevent disruption to other young people’s education, we feel that it should only ever be considered as a last resort. We also believe strongly that the processes for excluding young people should be clear, transparent, and accessible to all young people and their parents. Finally, we believe that a right of appeal to an independent body is a necessary part of this system.

There are two reasons why we feel this is important. 117

7.2 Firstly, the consequences of being permanently excluded from school are extremely significant for the young person concerned. Many never re-engage with formal education, severely limiting their future life chances. 40% of 16-18 who are not in Education, Employment or training (NEETs) were previously permanently excluded from schoolx. This is particularly significant given that the permanently excluded represent only 0.09% of the school populationxi. Given this, it is only fair that all other options be tried first.

7.3 Secondly, exclusions disproportionately affect particular demographic groups, including those who are most vulnerable for other reasons. Boys are three times more likely to be excluded than girls. Children from certain ethnic groups (particularly traveller and black Caribbean backgrounds) are the most likely to be excluded. Exclusions are also higher among pupils on free school mealsxii. Children with special educational needs (both with and without statements) are over eight times more likely to be excluded from school.xiii

7.4 It is extremely worrying that the most vulnerable and marginalised young people are so much more likely to be excluded from schools, when school is often the most stable aspect of their lives. While the under 18’s are not protected by many aspects of age discrimination legislation, we believe that the legal duty placed on public bodies under the Equalities Act 2010, to address direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender or race, should apply in this case. Given the different rates of exclusions by gender and ethnicity, there is a compelling case for research to be conducted by Government to examine the cause of these differences, and to determine whether it is due to direct or indirect discrimination. Equally, the systems intended to protect against such discrimination (in particular the appeals process) should be at least left in place, and ideally strengthened. In line with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children who are being excluded should have the opportunity to express their views, and to have these taken seriously. We strongly welcome the powers recently given to the Local Government Ombudsman to intervene in such cases. We strongly believe that these powers should cover all state-funded schools, regardless of governance structure.

7.5 Finally, we agree with the Association of School and College Leaders, and the National Association of Head Teachers that the removal of a right to appeal will not be in the interest of schools, who will otherwise find themselves involved in lengthy and costly legal action as a result of exclusion appeals.

8 Summary of Recommendations

8.1 In summary, we believe that the Committee should: 118

• Focus on available research evidence as to the true state of behaviour in schools, and avoid relying on anecdote or media reporting;

• Take account of the evidence that suggests that behaviour in most schools is good most of the time;

• Encourage guidance on new powers for teachers which gives clarity on what young people can and cannot expect from teachers;

• Note the substantial evidence for the effectiveness of whole-school approaches to behaviour management;

• Investigate the effectiveness of UNICEF’s “Rights Respecting Schools” programme in improving behaviour;

• Support research to establish whether differential rates of exclusions between different genders and ethnic groups are caused by direct or indirect discrimination; and

• Recommend that the system of independent appeals for exclusions be at least maintained and ideally strengthened.

September 2010

i http://www.unicef.org/crc/ ii http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000923/OSR10-2010-TemplateNI86Final8.pdf iii http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RW041.pdf iv ibid v http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000942/SFR22_2010.pdf vi ibid vii http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/97651?uc%20=%20force_uj viii http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/behaviour/schooldisciplinepupilbehaviourpolicies/ ix http://www.unicef.org.uk/publications/pdf/sussex_interim_summary.pdf x http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000937/b01-2010v2.pdf xi http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000942/SFR22_2010.pdf xii Ibid. xiii ibid 119

Memorandum submitted by National Children’s Bureau

Summary

NCB welcomes the Committee’s inquiry into behaviour and discipline. Our submission will focus on one aspect of the inquiry areas listed:

- the efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour.

From recent work we have undertaken with a representative sample of six PRUs from across England, we are aware of the depth and multiplicity of the needs of their pupils. Although it is of course the primary purpose of PRUs to offer an educational intervention to these young people, our research confirms that their welfare and mental health needs must also be identified and addressed – often in the context of difficult and complex family situations. PRUs must be equipped to offer and/or broker the different types of support these children need in order to increase the likelihood of successful reintegration into mainstream education and, over time, improve their life chances.

‘. . . challenging behaviour is a communication about need.’1

1.0 About NCB

1.1 NCB is the leading national charity which supports children, young people and families, and those who work with them. Our vision is a society in which children and young people are valued, their rights respected and responsibilities enhanced; our mission, to advance the well-being of children and young people across every aspect of their lives.

1.2 We work with organisations from across the voluntary, statutory and private sectors through our membership scheme, and through the sector-led specialist networks and partnership programmes that operate under our charitable status. We are committed to evidence-informed decision making, and we lead the way in identifying and communicating high impact, community and family-centred solutions which will enable cost-effective, sector-led improvement and development.

1 Getz, J (2009) Urban village schools: putting relationships at the heart of secondary school organisation and design, page 58. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. http://www.gulbenkian.org.uk/publications/education/urban-village-schools

120

2.0 General characteristics of pupils in PRUs

2.1 The most recent government statistics2 indicate that, in 2008/9, around 6550 pupils were permanently excluded from primary, secondary and special schools. The most common reason for exclusion (29.6% of permanent exclusions) was permanent disruptive behaviour. Provisional figures for 20103 indicate that there were 12,800 pupils attending Pupil Referral Units (PRUs); around 75% of these pupils have special educational needs (13% with statements)4. While they offer important information, those headline statistics fail to provide an in-depth picture of the characteristics of pupils in PRUs, and the challenges faced by the staff who work with them.

2.2 That in-depth picture is what former headteacher James Getz described when he asked young people in Bristol who left school without any qualifications to explore what had happened to lead to their disaffection and disengagement. Their personal stories referred to bullying, drinking, family breakdown, feeling anxious about the move to secondary school, having difficult relationships with their teachers, becoming involved with the ‘wrong’ peer group, and truanting. ‘. . . the fuller story, including the family story, is seldom heard by the school; and the school story becomes a series of events to which the school is compelled to respond rather than a narrative of information which might help to enable the young person to engage.’5

2.3 Secondary schools can be large, intimidating and unwelcoming. James Getz notes the limitations on secondary schools’ ability ‘to address the needs of young people with complex social, emotional and cognitive challenges . . . especially where numbers of the disaffected reach a critical mass.’6 That can be the point at which alternative education support needs to step in: to offer a more personalised, relationship-based education experience.

3.0 NCB audit of pupils in PRUs

3.1 In 2009/10, NCB worked with staff from six Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) from across England to undertake an audit of the needs of 268 children attending those Units7. The project was funded by the Department of Health, with the aim of

2 DfE (2010) Permanent and fixed period exclusions in schools 2008/9. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000942/index.shtml 3 DfE (13 May 2010) Schools, pupils and their characteristics, January 2010 (provisional). http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000925/SFR09-2010.pdf 4 DCSF (2008) Pupil Referral Unit Census. 5 Getz, J, page 38. 6 Ibid, page 40. 7 Newvell, J and Brown, L (forthcoming) Matching needs and services: an audit of the needs of 268 children attending Pupil Referral Units in six local authority areas. London: National Children’s Bureau 121

building PRU capacity to support the mental health needs of the children and young people in their care. A draft version of the audit is being consulted on with a wider group of PRUs, with the final version due for publication later this year.

3.2 PRU staff are expected to support, manage and educate young people, many of whom have significant difficulties and multiple needs which can often manifest themselves as behaviour problems. Whilst the primary purpose of PRUs is to provide education, the results of the audit of need demonstrate how a failure to address the broader social and emotional needs of these young people may impede their capacity to take advantage of these educational opportunities, and will almost certainly continue to have a negative impact on their educational outcomes and future life chances.

3.3 The 268 children in the sample and their parents have a wide range of needs and those needs are serious. More than half the children (62%) are judged to have reached the significant impairment threshold.

• The youngest children in the audit (9 of them) are age 5, the eldest 16. The majority (74) of those in the audit are age 15. • Half the children (50%) live with a lone parent. • For almost a fifth of children (17%) domestic violence is an issue in their life. • More than half the children (61%) have behaviour problems at home and over a quarter (27%) have been involved in offending behaviour. Almost half (45%) have poor social skills. Bullying is an issue for a quarter (25%). • Health issues are a problem for many parents and children. Almost half the children (47%) are described as having low self-esteem. A similar proportion (44%) is described as having emotional and mental health difficulties. A quarter of children (25%) have a parent with a mental health problem. Almost a fifth of children (16%) have a physical health problem. One in ten children (11%) have a parent with a physical health problem. • Many children and families are struggling with substance misuse issues. A fifth of children (20%) have a parent who misuses drugs and/or alcohol, and a quarter of the children themselves (27%) misuse drugs and/or alcohol. • Personal hygiene is a an issue for some children, indicating a certain level of neglect at home but also providing a focus for bullying and social exclusion. • Not surprisingly, these children continue to struggle at school. Almost three quarters (68%) have behaviour problems in school, more than a third (36%) have been excluded, and almost half (41%) have attendance issues.

3.3 The top six categories of need identified by the researchers are: • Need to improve adult/child relationships (77 children) • Ned to reduce the impact of loss and trauma (61 children) • Need for much improved care at home (33 children) • Need for consistent boundaries at home (32 children) • Need for behaviour to be understood and managed (14 children) • Need to overcome the impact of domestic violence (13 children)

122

3.4 These findings indicate that, although behaviour in and outside the school is a significant issue, the underlying problems faced by these children require accurate assessment and appropriate intervention. We cannot expect the wide range and severity of need to be met by one service – ie a school or PRU – working in isolation. Support has to come from a broad spectrum of agencies, working in a well-integrated manner and with a clear focus on the outcomes that can be achieved in response to the needs identified. In particular, responses have to cater for the needs of both the children and their families.

3.5 A thorough assessment of the child’s needs is critical. Staff must be equipped to properly identify those children who realistically can be reintegrated, and those for whom a more settled, longer term placement at a PRU is in their best interest. An unrealistic expectation that every child can or should be reintegrated into mainstream education quickly can cause more harm than good to that child. Repeated attempts to reintegrate children without addressing their underlying issues is costly and can be very damaging, especially to the children most in need of some stability in their lives.

3.6 In terms of special educational needs/SEN, the audit picked up some worrying practice in some local authorities where statemented children arrived at the PRU without the additional support identified in their statement. Seemingly, the local authority assumed that the PRU, with its lower pupil/staff ratios, already receives additional funding and does not need to access the specialist support that should be available through the local authority. There were other instances of pupils with statements spending a long period of time in a PRU because of a lack of suitable alternatives.

3.7 As the audit shows, PRU staff offer a range of services to try to help individual children deal with the difficulties they face. These services include: SEAL group work, behaviour management for parents, working with parents to improve their child’s attendance at school/PRU, teaching life skills, focusing on a child’s personal and social development and trying to build up his self-esteem, accessing rape support for a pupil, or simply providing a safe and happy environment.

3.8 However, the audit also demonstrates that PRUs remain aware of the limitations of what they can achieve when parents do not want to cooperate with the educational establishment, when the parent’s relationship with the child is bad and deteriorating, or when the street offers a more seductive environment than a child’s home or the PRU. The overriding message from PRU staff is that, if accepted by the parent/parents, work with the family is key.

3.9 A PRU can be a good base from which to deliver a range of services. With the advantage of having a higher pupil/staff ratio, PRU staff generally know their young people and often their parents very well, and work hard to build a relationship of trust which is vital if there is to be meaningful engagement with services. Discussions with PRU staff during the development of the audit report raised questions regarding the staff/skills mix in PRUs. Should all PRU staff be teachers, or 123

would a mix of education, social care and mental health staff be better able to cater for the needs of their students?

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 Schools and PRUs are not simply places of learning; they are also places where a child’s welfare needs can be identified and addressed.

4.2 NCB is concerned at the way in which the government seems to be narrowing its schools policies to focus on ‘teaching and learning’, thereby downplaying the crucial role the school or PRU can play in identifying needs and bringing in services that help children make the best of their educational opportunities, and improve their educational attainment.

4.3 Pupils at risk of exclusion or excluded for disruptive behaviour are often deeply troubled and in need of welfare and other interventions. In order to help these pupils re-engage with education, schools and PRUs have to be able to provide a needs-led, tailored response that can address the child’s welfare as well as education needs.

September 2010 124

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Education, University of London

The Institute of Education is the leading institution for education research in the UK and is one of the country's largest centres of social science research.

This response draws on evidence from colleagues at the Institute, in particular the work of Professor Sue Hallam, Dr Andrea Creech, Nick Peacey and Dr Lynne Rogers.

Introduction 1. The causes of poor behaviour in school are complex and multi-faceted and depend on interactions between society, sub-groups within it, the family, the school, peer groups and the individual. There is no single solution to the problem. Globalisation and technological advances have changed the nature of work and increased pressure on education systems to raise attainment. Concurrently, societal and familial changes have impacted on children leading to an increase in troubled behaviour, which is often expressed at school. Various initiatives have been developed with a view to enhancing the capacity of education systems to meet these new demands.

The nature and level of challenging behaviour 2. The most frequent and disruptive problems as identified by teachers are minor in nature (e.g. talking out of turn, hindering other students and distractibility), but their high frequency makes them stressful. Violent incidents are rare.

3. There is evidence from a range of sources that behaviour has improved. Nevertheless, there is no reason for complacency, and there does continue to be cause for concern in some schools that have challenging intakes. The situation is exacerbated in these schools because many have a high staff turnover.

Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools 4. Even schools that face the most challenging circumstances have achieved outstanding success in relation to pupil behaviour. Central to this has typically been:

⎯ an ethos of respect among pupils, parents and school staff;

⎯ behaviour and learning and teaching policies that are understood and operated by all school members; 125

⎯ a culture of collegiate professionalism, with staff working together as a team;

⎯ teachers who have a high level of knowledge of good pedagogical practice;

⎯ the active engagement of the pupils in the school; and

⎯ excellent communications with parents and parents’ active involvement in their child’s learning.

5. Where a school is experiencing major difficulties with behaviour, an audit of the perceptions of staff, pupils, parents and others associated with the school can be valuable in terms of identifying key issues and areas for attention.

6. To effect change, schools need to be proactive rather than reactive, as pastoral systems have tended to be historically. Schools can usefully address behaviour issues at three levels: the whole school level; interventions targeted at groups of children at risk or showing early signs of difficulties; and interventions for pupils already exhibiting serious difficulties.

7. At the whole school level, effective practice includes:

⎯ consistency in implementing good practice in relation to teaching, learning and behaviour management;

⎯ a written teaching and learning policy that identifies key learning and teaching aims, strategies and practices, developed in consultation with staff and reviewed regularly;

⎯ high quality teaching adopting Assessment for Learning practices;

⎯ a curriculum that meets the needs of pupils, including those with Special Educational Needs (SEN), increasing the perceived relevance of education to their lives and future opportunities. (For some this may mean spending part of the week at college or with an employer learning vocational or pre-vocational skills, or attending community activities designed to promote personal and pro-social skills);

⎯ the regular review of behaviour management policies with input from staff, pupils, parents and others linked with the school;

⎯ all school staff, including support staff, being trained in behaviour management techniques to ensure consistency in approach;

⎯ the development of a learning culture where parents and carers, pupils and teachers work with mutual regard for each other, with teachers and other school staff acting as positive role models in terms of their behaviour;

⎯ all pupils having one member of staff who knows them well, who provides support for their learning and to whom they can turn if they are experiencing problems; 126

⎯ systems of rewards and punishments that are consistently applied, including making use of peer pressure to effect whole school behaviour change;

⎯ systems to tackle bullying, including restorative justice programmes;

⎯ a safe and secure physical environment (simple changes – for example, in the playground – can often have a dramatic impact on behaviour); and

⎯ opportunities for staff and pupils to engage in extra-curricular activities, which can promote better relationships, which are in turn crucial for learning.

8. Programmes that encourage children to understand their own learning, motivation and emotions (e.g. the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning, SEAL, programme) are effective when implemented consistently across the whole school.

9. Where individual teachers or support staff are experiencing particular challenges in classroom management, coaching has proved very effective in providing a non- judgemental approach that is successful in changing practice.

10. Schools can work with Safer School Partnership officers or local Police Community Support Officers to ensure that there is good behaviour on the way to and from school and in tackling inappropriate behaviour outside the school gate.

11. Extended provision is valuable in supporting children and their families and communities. It does this by providing: childcare; extra-curricular activities; support for parents, including information sessions at key transition points; family learning; and parenting programmes. It ensures swift referral from schools to a wider range of specialised support services for pupils (e.g. speech therapy, family support services), and facilitates widespread community use of the school’s facilities.

12. In terms of more targeted interventions, it is crucial to identify early on any issues, including poor behaviour, that are impeding a child’s progress. Accordingly, schools must have rigorous systems in place for setting targets and monitoring pupils’ academic progress (developments in computer software are facilitating this). As soon as a child is identified as experiencing problems the underlying nature of those problems needs to be identified so that they can be tackled. Problems may relate to learning itself or social issues in the school, at home or in the community.

127

13. When a pupil is misbehaving and preventing others from learning, options include the temporary removal of the pupil from the classroom to a safe place where he/she can regain control.

14. Small group interventions can be effective in developing emotional and social skills. Nurture groups have been shown to be particularly effective for very young children. Group work for all pupils is more effective when run in parallel with programmes for parents. The publication ‘Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project: Using evidence to inform your approach – a practical guide to head teachers and commissioners’ provides detailed guidance of effective interventions for particular types of problem.

15. For some children referral to the Learning Support Unit (LSU) may be appropriate; for others various agencies may need to be involved. To this end, schools need to have extensive links with a wide range of other agencies that can support children at risk or in the early stages of experiencing difficulties (i.e. Behaviour and Education Support Teams, Children and Mental Health Services, Health Services, Social Services, Youth Workers and the Police).

16. Approximately 10% of pupils experience mental health problems at some point in time. The Targeted Mental Health in Schools (TaHMS) Project aims to equip schools with the tools to identify problems early on and in conjunction with other agencies take preventative action.

17. There is a need for improved training for school leaders, teachers, support staff and trainee teachers in managing very difficult behaviour and new developments in this regard (e.g. cyber bullying). This might usefully draw on the expertise of those working regularly with children with Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD).

Pupils with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities 18. Much poor behaviour results from the inability of children, particularly those with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities (SEND), to access curricula that are inflexibly designed and engage with particular teaching approaches. Pupils with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) are highly likely to be identified as having behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (see, for example, Cross 2004). Pupils with statements of SEN are around three times more likely to be permanently excluded than the rest of the school population.

128

19. Where teaching is differentiated, taking account of different levels of expertise and the need for removal of barriers to learning and participation, all pupils benefit. The training materials produced by the Training and Development Agency for Schools for new teachers provide useful guidance on differentiation, including suggestions for different subject teachers and short booklets on many aspects of SEND in the classroom (www.tda.gov.uk/sen).

20. Shield and Dockrell (2003) have demonstrated convincingly the significant effect on the attainment of pupils with SEND of a poor acoustic environment: room acoustics should always be considered if the behaviour of a group is a worry.

Absent and excluded pupils 21. While persistent absentees present different problems for schools to those with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties the long-term outcomes for these pupils are similar. At risk groups include: students who have been ill for lengthy periods of time; young carers; pregnant schoolgirls and young mothers; highly mobile students (such as travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, young people whose families are in crisis); students in and out of custody; and school refusers and school phobics.

22. There is considerable difference in the levels of exclusion between schools, even when they have similar catchment areas. This reflects differences in the levels of behaviour threshold set, the degree of flexibility in schools’ behaviour policies, the use of legitimate alternatives to exclusion, and the use of informal exclusion.

23. Variation in the level of a school’s official exclusions does not necessarily relate to variation in behaviour outcomes or inclusiveness of practice. Major factors affecting school’s thresholds include the level of challenge presented by pupils, the pressure the head teacher is under to improve the school, and the level of priority given to academic outcomes. The attitudes of staff and in particular those of the senior management team and head teacher are the most important factors in explaining differences in exclusion levels across similar schools.

24. Schools reporting no or few exclusions have been shown to emphasise parental involvement and do not view pupils of low socio-economic status as being disadvantaged. They tend to emphasise praise and reward systems in managing behaviour, have structured breaks and lunchtimes, and involve pupils in decision- making. 129

25. Transition from primary to secondary school can be particularly difficult for pupils at risk of exclusion from school (this includes pupils who are eligible for free school meals, pupils with SEN, pupils less fluent in English and pupils from some ethnic groups). Means of minimising exclusions include:

⎯ buddying schemes;

⎯ use of learning mentors;

⎯ involvement of SENCOs at primary and secondary school;

⎯ effective transfer of information and understanding of a pupil’s needs so that support structures are in place from day one in the secondary school;

⎯ continuing the transition programme into a pupil’s secondary schooling to allow time for him/her to settle in; and

⎯ use of the LSU.

Alternative provision 26. Support for at risk children (absent, at risk of exclusion or excluded) may be provided for individuals or groups and may involve support from a single adult (e.g. a key worker, learning mentor, home-school link worker), or, in more complex cases, a multi-agency team.

27. Most alternative curricula provision caters for small groups of students. Successful provision is typically characterised by:

⎯ the development of trusting, mutually respectful relationships between staff and students;

⎯ a negotiated curriculum that matches the needs of learners;

⎯ students being given responsibility for their own learning;

⎯ the counselling and mentoring role of staff who have time to help;

⎯ the development of a learning community;

⎯ praising and rewarding what young people can do;

⎯ providing opportunities for students to learn that there will be consequences for the whole group if behaviour is not appropriate and work is not completed;

⎯ the development of students’ team-work and social and communication skills;

⎯ the opportunity for real achievement and qualifications as recognised and valued by the students;

⎯ the adoption of a problem-solving approach; 130

⎯ the commitment and qualities of the staff; and

⎯ working at building relationships with parents (including home visits).

28. E-learning (e.g. Notschool.net) can provide a successful alternative for some students whose circumstances are such that other alternatives are not appropriate.

29. Where children have been excluded the main legitimate alternatives include:

⎯ the use of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs);

⎯ collaborative arrangements between schools;

⎯ varied provision in clusters of schools;

⎯ internal exclusion centres;

⎯ external centres;

⎯ setting up an alternative school day;

⎯ managed moves to another school; and

⎯ alternative educational provision.

30. Provision on Day 6 for excluded pupils has proved challenging to implement, but is important for pupils’ long-term outcomes. This is mainly provided through behaviour and attendance partnerships and includes:

⎯ schools sharing provision where a number of schools are located close together (these need not all be the same phase);

⎯ schools within a partnership commissioning private/voluntary sector provision, using delegated funding; and

⎯ where capacity exists and geography permits, schools having access to short-term places in local PRUs.

31. The further development of behaviour and attendance partnerships would be supported by the provision of a framework against which partnerships can assess their own performance, including:

⎯ the active engagement of all member schools and other bodies within the partnership reflecting their ownership of the partnership and their commitment to all local children;

⎯ the inclusion within the partnership of any local PRUs together with other major providers of alternative provision;

⎯ engagement of the partnership with primary schools and further education colleges; 131

⎯ alignment of the behaviour and attendance partnership with the local Safer School Partnership;

⎯ engagement with extended services to improve support to pupils and parents and to facilitate reintegration into mainstream provision as required;

⎯ clear protocols for pupil managed moves and for the placement of ‘hard to place’ pupils to be operated by all members of the partnership;

⎯ a focus on effective early intervention;

⎯ the use of ‘pooled’ resources to enable the partnership to buy in specialist support;

⎯ the transparent use of data so that the partnership can monitor its performance and identify strategic objectives; and

⎯ a staff training programme related to behaviour and attendance to provide opportunities for ongoing continuous professional development (CPD) and joint networking.

The role of parents and carers in managing their child’s behaviour 32. Schools need the support of parents in ensuring their child’s good behaviour. A number of initiatives to promote better relationships with parents have been developed: the appointment of Parent Support Advisors; guidance on the ‘rights and responsibilities’ of parents and schools; Family Intervention Projects; on-line reporting; and Family SEAL.

33. Parenting programmes have been shown to be effective in enhancing the skills of parents in managing their children’s behaviour. To be successful parenting programmes need to:

⎯ take account of differences in parents’ personal and cultural contexts, equipping parents with a range of appropriate personal and social skills and relevant behavioural strategies;

⎯ provide a non-stigmatising and welcoming climate;

⎯ ensure that parents in receipt of compulsory orders have a home visit prior to attending a group-based programme;

⎯ provide childcare facilities;

⎯ provide transport arrangements if the location is not convenient;

⎯ ensure that programmes are timed to meet the needs of those attending;

⎯ ensure appropriate publicity for programmes;

⎯ reward attendance and follow-up non-attendance rigorously;

⎯ provide opportunities for follow-up classes; 132

⎯ provide appropriately trained facilitators who have credibility and who can establish trust;

⎯ make sessions fun and adopt a range of teaching approaches that engage parents with different backgrounds and educational levels and draw on their own experiences;

⎯ provide appropriate support materials;

⎯ rigorously evaluate outcomes and act on feedback; and

⎯ develop good links with other agencies.

34. Setting-up programmes in primary schools has advantages where problems are related to educational outcomes. This can also provide the basis for universal provision.

35. If a parent’s actions are contributing to their child’s poor behaviour the school should consider offering a Parenting Contract to tackle this and to set out the support that will be available to the family.

Recent government proposals 36. Schools already have the legal power to search pupils for weapons as well as alcohol, controlled drugs and stolen property. The latest initiatives simply extend these powers and may therefore have limited additional impact.

37. The changes in relation to detention provide the opportunity to impose a more immediate punishment for pupils. However, detention is generally ineffective for persistent poor behaviour unless the time is used to identify the underlying causes of the behaviour and take action to ameliorate them.

September 2010

Sources Hallam, S. and Rogers, L. (submitted) Mental health initiatives in schools. Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Steer, A. (2010) Behaviour and the role of home-school agreements. London: DCSF.

DCSF (2010) Me and My School: Preliminary Findings from the first year of the National Evaluation of Targeted Mental Health in School (2008-2009). London: DCSF.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L. and Rhamie, J. (2010) Staff perceptions of the success of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(1), 63-74.

133

Hallam, S. (2010) Transforming troubled lives: the role of schools. Keynote presentation given at the Social, Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties Association conference, 14-17th September 2010, Keble College, Oxford.

Steer, A. (2009) Learning Behaviour: Lessons learned. A review of behaviour standards and practices in our schools. London: DCSF.

DCSF (2009) Learning from Targeted Mental Health in Schools Phase 1 Pathfinders. London: DCSF.

Hallam, S. (2009) An evaluation of the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme: promoting positive behaviour, effective learning and well-being in primary school children. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), June, 313-330.

Rogers, L., Hallam, S., Shaw, J. and Rhamie, J. (2009) The integration of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force, British Journal of Special Education, 35(3), 131-139.

Rogers, L., Hallam, S. and Shaw, J. (2008) Do generalist parenting programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school: The parents’ perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 16-25.

DCSF (2008) Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project: Using evidence to inform your approach – a practical guide to head teachers and commissioners. London: DCSF.

Hallam, S. and Rogers, L. (2008) Improving behaviour and attendance at school. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Hallam, S. and Creech, A. (2007) A review of the literature relating to the parental aspirations of teenage mothers. Reading: CfBT.

Hallam, S. (2007) Evaluation of behavioural management in schools – a review of the role of Behaviour and Education Support Teams and the Behaviour and Improvement Programme. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(3), 106-112.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., Shaw, J. and Rhamie, J. (2007) The provision of educationally focused parenting programmes in England. European Journal of Special Educational Needs. 22(3), 307-326.

Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P. and Stobart, G. (2007) Revolution, evolution or a Trojan horse? Assessment for learning in Scottish Primary Schools. British Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 605-627.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., Rhamie, J., Shaw, J., Rees, E., Haskins, H., Blackmore, J. and Hallam, J. (2007) Pupils’ perceptions of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force. Research Papers in Education, 22(1), March, 43-63.

Hallam, S., Shaw, J. and Rhamie, J. (2006) Evaluation of the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot. Research Report 717. London: DfES.

Shield, B. M. and Dockrell, J. E. (2003) The Effects of Noise on Children at School: A Review. Building Acoustics, 10, 97-116. 134

Steer, A. (2005) Learning behaviour: The report of the practitioner’s group on school behaviour and discipline. London: DfES.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., Castle, F., Rhamie, J., Creech, A. and Kokotsaki, D. (2005) Evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement Programme. Research Report 702. London: DfES.

Cross, M. (2004) Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Communication Problems: There is Always a Reason. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L. and Shaw, J. (2004) Improving children’s behaviour and attendance through the use of parenting programmes: an examination of good practice. Research Report 585. London: DfES.

Hallam, S., Kirton. A., Peffers, J., Robertson, P. and Stobart, G. (2004) Final Report of the Evaluation of Project 1 of the Assessment is for Learning Development Programme: Support for Professional Practice in Formative Assessment. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Hallam, S. and Rogers, L., with Rhamie, J., Shaw, J., Rees, E., Haskins, H., Blackmore, J. and Hallam, J. (2003) Evaluation of Skill Force. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Hallam, S. and Castle, F. (1999) Evaluation of a School-Home Liaison Project – London Diocesan Board for Schools. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Hallam, S. and Castle, F. (1999) Evaluation of the Behaviour and Discipline Pilot Projects (1996-99) Supported under the Standards Fund Programme. Research Report 163. London: DfEE.

Hallam, S. (1996) Improving School Attendance. London: Heinemann.

Hallam, S. and Roaf, C. (1995) Here Today, Here Tomorrow: Helping schools to promote attendance. London: Gulbenkian Foundation. 135

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).

136

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 137

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 per cent of primary and 80 per cent of secondary schools inspected in 2008-09, and that behaviour was inadequate in just 1 per cent 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? 138

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 efficacy 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.

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, 139

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

140

Memorandum submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders

Introduction

1 The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents 15,000 members of the leadership teams of maintained and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. This places the association in a particularly good position to present evidence to this inquiry.

2 We would draw the committee’s attention to work that has already been completed on behaviour particularly the work of the group chaired by Sir Alan Steer (2009) and the Practitioners’ Group (2005).

3 We hope that the committee recognises that the vast majority of schools are calm well-ordered places where violent, disruptive behaviour is not a significant issue: a view supported by evidence from Ofsted.

4 This report can only identify a number of the key points on such a broad topic and the association is happy to provide further information as required.

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

5 School should aim for the highest possible standards of student behaviour.

6 Schools should develop a positive ethos within their school community. Pupils need to be engaged in the life of the school, consulted through pupil voice and their leadership and decision making skills developed.

7 What the school expects of students should be clear and understood by all. Ideally the students and their parents should be involved in setting these expectations. These expectations should be displayed around the school. A number of schools have built on the idea of “Rights and Responsibilities” to help determine expectations of behaviour.

8 The student support system of a school should ensure that every pupil has someone who knows them well and is able to support them with their learning and development. Specific additional support may need to be focused on those young people that are particularly vulnerable. A number of schools have used Learning mentors effectively in this role.

9 To promote good order schools not only need to have agreed policies and practices in place, but all the staff in the school need to implement these policies consistently.

10 Inappropriate behaviour should always be challenged and the issues addressed. ASCL supports the principle of “early identification and intervention” to work with students with behavioural issues.

11 Where staff are having difficulties with behavioural management they should receive intensive support and coaching.

141

The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

12 Schools have a challenging task, being expected to uphold the highest behavioural standards whilst children, their parents and society often observe very different behavioural norms outside school and at weekends.

13 It should be noted that the standards of behaviour in the vast majority of secondary schools are good or better.

14 Media reports of declining standards are not built on any firm evidence base but tend to come from a false extrapolation from a few relatively isolated but often serious incidents.

15 Schools and their teachers do however face challenging behaviour from some young people and a range of strategies have been employed to deal with the situations faced.

16 There is a range of challenging behaviour. The most common is what is termed “low level disruption” to lessons through children not retaining concentration and failing to focus on their work. This is demonstrated by actions such as, talking out of turn, shouting out, children out of their seat or generally hindering other students. This type of behaviour can be a constant drain on staff energy and take the focus away from developing the learning experiences for the students. Teachers and support assistants have however developed a wide range of strategies and approaches to both minimise the level of such disruption and to deal with it when it occurs.

17 The more serious behavioural problems include: • Complete refusal to follow staff instructions • Continual use of abusive language and use of threats to staff or other students • Racist incidents • Violence to staff or other students • Selling drugs • Weapon carrying and/or use • Gang culture and fighting

18 All of the above behaviours can cause insecurity in staff and students and seriously affect staff confidence and undermine their authority. Again schools have well developed approaches to dealing with these situations but damage can be done to the ethos and culture of the school by the very fact that these activities take place even when dealt with well by the school.

19 Although a serious incident can have a negative impact on a school, dealing very well with such an incident can also have a positive impact by making it clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and showing what the consequences are should there be a similar event.

20 Schools also have to deal with issues between students and increasingly conflicts from outside the school that move into the school and impact on school life.

142

21 The electronic age has brought with it a number of new challenges including cyber bullying and challenges to school staff authority through social networking sites. Strategies to deal with these are being used but are still at a developmental stage.

The Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions

22 Prevention is of course far better than having to deal with unacceptable behaviour. Developing a suitable school ethos of respect among students, staff and parents is essential, as is having a curriculum appropriate to the needs of the students. Having a range of learning and teaching approaches that engages and interests the young people will significantly reduce incidents of poor behaviour. Schools have commented on the fact that the increased flexibility in the curriculum at both KS3 and KS4 has been helpful and has helped improve behaviour.

23 Many schools have introduced training programmes for their staff on behavioural management strategies.

24 There is considerable experience in schools as to what works in successfully managing behaviour. Secondary schools have extremely well developed structures to support classroom teachers in terms of dealing with disruptive pupils. These include: • Coaching schemes led by experienced members of staff • Observation classrooms to observe experienced teachers at work • Peer support systems • Use of specially trained classroom support assistants • Support staff on call to support staff and deal with incidents • Withdrawal of students from the classroom • Use of extraction rooms following seriously disruptive incidents • Use of internal exclusion (with support for the student) as an alternative to external exclusion • Senior staff on call available to deal with serious incidents • Support and re-integration programmes for students that have been internally or externally excluded

24 Many schools now have highly trained support staff in support of staff and to work with pupils that are causing issues in the classroom or around the school. Schools use punishments both to deter pupils and as part of the process for students to understand that their actions have consequences.

25 Retaining students after the lesson and into a break or lunchtime is a very commonly used approach. After school detentions tend to be used for repeat offenders.

26 Fixed Term external exclusions are used for repeated “minor” incidents or for more serious offences such as: • Violence to another pupil • Possession of drugs on the school premises • Theft • Damage to property • Racist incidents

143

27 Although the vast majority of secondary schools will use any form of external exclusion only after exhausting other alternatives there is a significant variation in the use of external exclusions.

28 Most secondary schools operate effectively in behavioural partnerships in which the use of “managed moves” or “fresh starts” as a way of giving students a further opportunity to succeed within the school system without the need for a permanent exclusion. The success of such programmes is variable and many partnerships have developed schemes of “time out” between the schools with specific work carried out with the young person, often through a PRU or special school, to modify the student behaviour before their start in the new school.

29 In some places partnerships are still at a low level of effectiveness, particularly when some schools remain outside the group. In some cases trust is lacking and league tables, and the competition for pupils, inhibits openness and honesty.

30 Where partnerships are working well, behaviour collaboration has produced positive benefits in reducing the number of fixed term and permanent exclusions as well as improving attendance rates. Schools actively involve other specialists to work with students and multi agency working in schools is now fairly common. We see this working most effectively when the multi- disciplinary teams are based in schools. The quality of such teams, their capacity to deal with the volume of work and their support for individual students is variable across the country.

31 Some schools have worked together to operate a unit on a neutral site. This is used as a buffer between six day and permanent exclusion. In authorities like Lancashire schools have set up “respite centres” which pupils attend from the sixth day of exclusion. There are also examples of schools providing an “alternative day” in order to reduce short term exclusions with pupils attending school at varying times and taught in separate units.

32 Many secondary schools continue to complain that they do not have enough time from educational psychologists, social workers and education welfare staff. There has been an increase in the number of pupils from mainstream schools suffering from mental health problems, often with consequent behavioural problems. Schools continue to be frustrated at the slow response time for access to children’s mental health services including child and family guidance.

33 The restriction placed on schools with the requirement to make educational arrangements for students on exclusions beyond the sixth day appears to have led schools to keep fixed term exclusions down to five days whenever possible. There are however some good examples of local arrangements working well but there are some organisational or cost issues particularly in rural areas with long distances between schools.

34 Permanent exclusion is, for the majority of secondary schools, a last resort: only used when all else has failed. However some members have indicated that they “have” to move to permanent exclusion as this is the only way to trigger the required support for the young person, highlighting the concerns we have regarding the difficulties of accessing some of the support services.

144

35 ASCL believes that in the interests of fairness and natural justice independent appeals panels against exclusions should remain. We consider that the removal of these panels will also lead to several parents taking legal action against schools which will involve a great deal more work and unnecessary bureaucracy for the school.

36 Following a permanent exclusion there are good examples of how behavioural partnerships handle the process of allocating another school to the student. The use of re-integration programmes and a phased introduction to the new school are well used in many parts of the country.

37 ASCL has considerable concerns regarding Children’s Trusts. Although there are reports of some working well in most cases these appear ineffective and bureaucratic and have failed to produce “joined up action”. Inter-agency work is at its most effective at an institutional rather than authority wide level.

Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

38 Schools need to actively engage with all parents and set up a good communications system so that parents feel involved in the decision making processes related to their child’s education. The use of modern technology is helpful here with the use of email and text systems now being extensively used, although there are still issues with the hard to reach parents.

39 Many schools use some form of “single point of contact” approach for parents so that parents know who to contact and a relationship is set up between that member of staff and the parent.

40 Several schools have made excellent use of Parent Support Advisers to promote the school-home relationship.

41 A number of schools have had success in working either on their own or with external agencies in setting up support “clinics” for parents to work with them on strategies to improve their child’s behaviour. One of the frequently observed issues relates to young people who have not had any boundaries set at home and therefore find it difficult in environments where boundaries are clearly laid out. We would urge work with such families at an early age as the behavioural patterns are often ingrained in the pupil by the time they get to secondary school which makes the task in there much more difficult.

42 Many schools will use a regular phone contact with the parent/guardian to inform them of progress. It is essential to find positive messages to send home as well as concerns. Positive message can give the parent encouragement to persevere whereas a series of negative messages can led to the parent giving up.

43 As some parents themselves have negative views of schools, some schools have used home visits or meetings at neutral venues e.g. youth club to meet with parents so that the parent is not “always been called into school”.

How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

145

44 Behaviour policies need to be flexible enough to ensure that students with SEN are in no way disadvantaged.

45 Much progress has been made to ensure that able students with behavioural issues are not placed in SEN (learning difficulties) groups.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

46 There is significant variation in the quality of alternative provision with some excellent work in PRUs, college linked and vocational courses and special schools. There is much to learn from the good practice and better dissemination of this is essential.

47 Some special schools report that they are admitting pupils with behavioural difficulties at an older age than in the past, as mainstream schools are keeping them longer, eventually failing in many cases at around years 9 or 10. This can mean that they arrive at special school too late for the school to have a great impact on the behaviour of the pupil before they reach the end of compulsory education.

Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

48 It is important that all students are in school unless ill or engaged in education off site. Attainment is clearly linked to attendance, with absence being one of the major factors in limiting student progress.

49 There is some evidence that those students who have behavioural problems also have lower attendance rates. This can be a viscous circle as absence gives a discontinuity in the learning experience which means the pupil has difficulty in picking up the lesson at the start (as they were not in the lesson last time) and this can led to them being disinterested and then disruptive. Some schools put in place strategies to deal with this to ensure such students are engaged at the start of the lesson. Although this can be time consuming for the teaching staff it can be highly effective.

50 It is interesting to note that schools that have adopted alternative curriculum routes for potentially difficult young people have seen both an increase in motivation, attendance and attainment. This would emphasise the point made earlier about the impact an appropriate curriculum and good learning and teaching has on students.

51 ASCL broadly welcomes the support of the government for schools when they have to deal with poor behaviour.

52 The vast majority of incidents in schools do not require the use of force by staff, but heads and teachers will be reassured that they have the Secretary of State’s backing in the rare incidents when this becomes necessary. We would, however emphasise that there should be absolute clarity, in law, on 146

this as the final decision on whether the use of any force is acceptable will lie in the hands of the courts.

53 ASCL welcomes the extension of the powers to search and would urge that common sense should rule how and when the search is carried out rather than the set of regulations that were considered when the previous administration was examining this.

54 The association acknowledges the sentiments behind the wish to remove the “24 hour notice” for detentions. In most cases this would only apply to detentions after school as for break and lunchtime detentions there was never any reason previously to give notice. For after school detentions there are a number of practical considerations to take into account. Firstly there is the safeguarding for the child; is it appropriate to delay a 12 or 13 year old on a dark evening to then potentially travel home alone without having warned the parents (who may not be able to collect the child)? For many schools there are transport issues where students travel to school by coach and parents would need to make arrangements to collect their child after the detention. The 24 hour gap also gives a “cooling off” period for the teacher who may have made a hasty decision. The school will also need to consider the relationship with the parents/guardians and a lack of prior notice, even if supported by statute, is likely to irritate them. For these reasons we can see a large number of schools not making use of this provision.

55 ASCL welcomes the determination in the July 7 statement to have anonymity for staff when allegations have been made against them. Evidence indicates that there has been an increase in the number of malicious allegations against staff and that some pupils are using these to “get” certain staff. Staff should be protected from being named in such cases.

September 2010 147

Memorandum submitted by YoungMinds

1. YoungMinds is the UK's leading charity committed to improving the emotional well being and mental health of children and young people by ensuring these issues are placed firmly on the public and political agenda. We achieve this though the provision of research, lobbying, influencing policy and campaigning. Driven by the experiences of children, young people, parents and carers we also raise awareness and provide expert knowledge through training, outreach work, and publications.

2. Executive Summary 2.1. The root causes of behaviour and discipline problems need to be tackled if there are to be any major improvements seen in our schools and communities. Many children and young people live very chaotic lives, and there has been a significant increase in the number of children and young people with mental health problem over the last few decades. Rather than punishing children and young people for bad behaviour, they need to be given support to help them become more resilient and deal with difficult situations. Many will need specialist support to help them with their mental health problems. Schools need a better understanding of what mental health is and know how to identify and refer on a child who they believe is experiencing mental distress. So schools need to work with other agencies to ensure that vulnerable children and young people receive the right help and support. Teachers also need support to ensure that they are themselves mentally healthy and better able to cope with the pressures of teaching. There is a lot that schools can do to promote the mental health and emotional wellbeing of their pupils, but they need to work in partnership with other agencies to achieve it. Many schools are doing this already, but it is far from universal. There are initiatives such as SEAL, TAMHS and the UK Resiliency Programme, all of which are delivered in schools and have been shown to promote mental health and wellbeing and are beginning to help tackle behaviour and discipline.

3. Look Behind the Behaviour

3.1. We believe that behaviour problems and discipline in schools need to be effectively addressed, for the sake of all child and young people in the school, the teachers and their families. However, there are reasons why children and young people behave in the way that they do. Rather than just punishing them, the underlying causes need to be addressed if behaviour and discipline problems are to be improved. We see behavioural problems within a mental health and wellbeing context, meaning that ‘bad behaviour’ is often related to the child’s mental health and wellbeing. So if a child has for instance a number of negative life experiences, this is likely to impact on how they see themselves and relate to others and it will influence their behaviour.

148

3.2. There is a lot of confusion around terminology, so to clarify what we mean our definition of mental health is ‘the strength and capacity of our minds to grow and develop and to be able to overcome difficulties and challenges and to make the most of our abilities and opportunities’.

3.3. We believe that mental health consists of the following: 1. A capacity to enter into, and sustain, mutually satisfying and sustaining personal relationships 2. Continuing progression of psychological development 3. An ability to play and to learn so that attainments are appropriate for age and intellectual level 4. A developing moral sense of right and wrong 5. A degree of psychological distress and maladaptive behaviour within normal limits for the child’s age and context

3.4. As this definition suggests, mental health is not the same as mental illness. Mental health is something that we all have, and it is an essential component of health. Being mental healthy is important for school attainment and appropriate behaviour in the school setting, good social relationships and about having the capacity to cope with all that life throws at us.

3.5. Many children who have a special educational need, particularly those who are said to have behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) will also have mental health problems.

4. Children’s Mental Health Problems

4.1. We know that many children and young people have very chaotic lives, and experience a whole range of negative life experiences such as seeing their parents divorce, living in poverty and in a deprived environment, where violence and gangs are everyday experiences or where their parents have mental health problems. We know that 1 in 10 children and young people aged 5-16 years have a mental disorder (Green, et al., 2004). This means that the person’s problems have reached a clinical threshold and are severe enough to require specialist help. However, there will be many more children and young people who will have a range of milder mental health problems which have not reached the clinical threshold, but it may still have a significant effect on their lives. Vulnerable groups such as children in care are even more likely to have a mental disorder. It has been estimated that 45% of children in care have a mental disorder (Meltzer, et al., 2003). Children and young people with mental health problems experience a number of negative life experiences. For instance, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH) survey found that over half of children with an emotional disorder or a conduct disorder had seen their parents divorce or separate (Green, et al.,2004).

4.2. About 5.8% or about one in 20 children and young people have a psychiatric disorder called a conduct disorder (Green, et al., 2004). This disorder is 149

associated with behavioural problems and crime and is more prevalent in boys than girls. Many more children and young people experience milder conduct problems, which do not meet the clinical threshold, but are also associated behavioural problems, crime and an increased risk of adverse outcomes in later life. It has been estimated that 30% of crime is committed by children with conduct disorders, at a cost to society of over £22 billion a year. One study estimated that the 45% of children who have mild or moderate conduct problems go on to commit half of all crime at an annual cost of some £37 billion. The lifetime costs of crime are an average of £160,000 for each child with conduct disorder and £45,000 for those with mild or moderate conduct problems (Centre for Mental Health, 2009).

4.3. Like many mental health problems, conduct disorder is related to poverty and disadvantage. For instance, among children and young people with conduct disorders: One-third of children lived in families where neither parent was working; More than half lived in households where the average income was £300/week; 41% lived in areas that were described as ‘hard pressed’ (Green, et al., 2004). Many mental health problems are associated with negative long-term socioeconomic outcomes, and this is particularly the case for people with a conduct disorder (Richards, M. et al. 2009).

4.4. Therefore, if we see behaviour as the outward expression of how children and young people feel and how they respond to the world around them, then it is not surprising that so many children and young people are said to be ‘badly behaved’. If we focus on the fact that some young people have behavioural problems because of the difficult and often dire situation in which they find themselves in, rather than focusing on them as being ‘bad’, then it is easier to see why it so important to provide the right help and support. This strategy will not only benefit children and young people themselves but will save millions in future costs to the NHS, Social Care and the Criminal Justice System.

5. Children and Young People with Mental Disorders and School Problems

5.1. Children and young people with mental disorders are much more likely to be excluded from school. For instance 15% of young people with a conduct disorder had been excluded 3 or more times from school, compared to young people without a mental disorder (Green, et al, 2004). Teachers report that young people with mental health problems are more likely to be truants, than young people without these problems (Green, et al., 2004). However, it is likely that some of these days off are likely to be due to actual illness.

5.2. Young people are more likely to enjoy going to school and behave better if the school environment and culture offers a safe and supportive environment that encourages them to become engaged in their own education and development. This relates to ensuring that the school has a healthy culture that is aware of and supports young people’s wellbeing and mental health as well as their educational development. Going to school can be helpful for young people with mental health problems because it is seen as a ‘normal’ activity. 150

5.3. Young people are known to improve when they are in a Pupil Referral Units (PRU) because they are in much smaller classes, and have a structure in place that helps them. This progress can stop once pupils return to their school unless they receive similar levels of support. To be effective PRUs need funds, and support from other agencies to tackle the underlying problems associated with behaviour problems. If effective support isn’t provided when young people are in a PRU, they are just held there and leave with as problems as they started with.

6. Schools are Key to Providing Support, but they Need to Work with Other Agencies

6.1. Schools are a key agency in providing support to children and young people because they spend so much of their time there. However, there needs to be a joined up approach to promoting mental health and wellbeing, and helping children and young people who are presenting with mental health problems. The Achieving Equity and Excellence for Children document states that although schools are not required to support young people’s health and wellbeing, good headteachers will continue to do so because they know that pupils can not learn if they are unwell, unhappy or struggling with what is going on in their family life (DH, 2010). Whist we wouldn’t dispute this, or that there are some good headteachers who understand how health and wellbeing affect attainment, our concern is that not all headteachers understand this link.

6.2. There is a need for early intervention, both in the form of preventing behaviour problems, or mental health problems occurring in the first place, and in providing support when problems first appear. Initiatives such as SEAL which promotes emotional literacy are important because it helps develop children and young peoples’ emotional literacy skills, and their social skills. So it helps children and young people to resolve problems, develop empathy, and form relationships. There are existing NICE public health guidance documents on promoting emotional wellbeing, but schools do not have to implement these recommendations. Schools should be encouraged to implement this guidance. Action for Children estimate that providing early intervention services are much more cost effective than waiting for problems to get worse, and require interventions that are much more expensive. They estimate that providing more effective early intervention could save UK economy £486 billion over twenty years (Aked, et al., 2009).

6.3. It is well known that in some areas child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) are not as effective as they should be. Some areas are doing some outstanding work, but this is far from being universal. CAMHS have historically been under resourced and under funded, although they see some of the most vulnerable children and young people. CAMHS is not just about specialist CAMHS, which are mainly situated within the NHS. The concept of the comprehensive CAMHS covers the full range of services that: promote the 151

mental health of all children and young people; provides early intervention services when problems first arise, and provide specialist mental health services for children and young people who have more serious mental health problems. Many of the services within the concept of the comprehensive CAMHS are provided by agencies other than the NHS e.g. social services, and the voluntary sector. All of these services need to be functioning effectively if the whole system is to work properly.

6.4. We know from the Schools Survey and from our work that schools do not always work in partnership with local child and adolescent mental health services. There can be a number of reasons for why this might be the case, but often it is connected to different agencies not having a shared vision for what this support could look like and not working together to achieve it. The Targeted Mental Health in Schools (TAMHS) projects have helped agencies to think about how they can work together, and provide help and support to the children and young people in their school. These projects were funded for 3 years, and are now in their final year. Schools and their local partners should be encouraged to work together to build on what they have found works and to mainstream these projects once the funding period ends.

6.5. Providing access within the school to support services, such as counselling can be helpful for young people who are experiencing problems. This might be for young people who have mental health or behavioural problems, but also for instance for those who have been bullied, have problems at home, have experienced bereavement and so on. Many young people find school to be a safe and familiar environment, so it is a good location for providing accessible support services as long as they are built around the needs of young people and aren’t stigmatizing.

7. Supporting Teachers

7.1. There also needs to be support for teachers themselves to support their mental health and to prevent burn out. Teachers provide a role model for the children in their care. As children are known to model their behaviour on those around them, there is a need to ensure that teachers are mentally healthy and resilient.

7.2. Many young people turn to their teacher for help when they experience problems. It is not realistic for teachers to be therapists, but we believe it’s vital that teachers know where to signpost children and young people to, and to have a basic understanding of child development and mental health. If teachers had this training, and/or knew how to get more specialist advice when required, it could help identify when a young person was experiencing mental distress, rather than just seeing them as being badly behaved.

7.3. Whole schools approaches, to behaviour and mental health, need to be led or endorsed by the head teacher, to ensure that this work isn’t marginalised. Dynamic and committed PSHE teachers are crucial, but tackling behavioural 152

issues and promoting mental health and wellbeing needs to be owned by the whole school.

7.4. The UK Resilience Programme (UKRP) is an example of an evidence-based programme that is being piloted in the UK and aims to build resilience and develop problem solving skills (Challen, et al. 2010). The programme requires the senior management teams in the respective 22 schools to sign-up to the programme, which involved providing workshops for year 7 pupils. The second interim report found that this programme did have a beneficial influence on the behaviours of the young people. For instance, it reduced reported depression and anxiety, and young people reported that it gave them skills to help resolve difficult situations and avoid arguments and fights. One of the schools reported that they saw a 50% reduction in fixed term exclusions.

8. Parents

8.1. It is important that parents are involved in any interventions concerning their child’s behaviour. Parenting support has been shown to be effective in helping parents whose child has conduct problems. From our work with schools, providing parents with information that helps them understand their child, and their mental health is helpful in tackling behaviour problems.

8.2. Our Parents Helpline receives calls from any adult who is worried about the behaviour or emotional problems of a child or young person. In 2009 39% of the calls were connected to school-based issues such as exam stress, bullying and school refusal.

9. Recommendations

9.1. There is a need for whole school approaches to promoting mental and emotional wellbeing, and tackling behaviour problems, which are led from the top. 9.2. Teachers should have some basic training in child development, and young people’s mental health, and know how to signpost young people to other local services. 9.3. Schools need to work with other local agencies to ensure that children and young people’s mental health is promoted, and any young people with difficulties are referred on to effective mental health services in the community. 9.4. There should be a joint local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) strategy, which includes all relevant agencies: health, education and local authority. 9.5. There should be a joint local commissioning plan to ensure that high quality services are provided to meet the mental health needs of all children and young people. 9.6. Schools need to implement relevant NICE guidance 9.7. Parents also need information to help them support their young people 153

9.8. Like the NHS there should be a framework that considers how public services, including schools improve young people’s outcomes across a range of dimensions.

September 2010

References

Aked, J. et al. (2009) Backing the future: why investing n children is good for us all. London: NEF and Action for Children. http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/uploads/media/36/7857.pdf

Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (2009) The chance of a lifetime: preventing early conduct problems and reducing crime. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/chance_of_a_lifetime.pdf

Challen, A. et al. (2010) UK Resilience Programme evaluation: second interim report. London: Department for Education. http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DFE-RR006.pdf

DH (2010) Achieving equity and excellence for children. London: DH. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidan ce/DH_119449

Green, H., McGinnity, A., Meltzer, H., et al. (2005). Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain 2004. London: Palgrave. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/GB2004.pdf

Meltzer, H. et al. (2003) The mental health of young people looked after by local authorities in England. London: The Stationery Office. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Mental_health_children_in_LAs.pdf

Richards, M. et al. (2009) Childhood mental health and life chances in post-war Britain: insights from three national birth cohort studies. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. See http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/publications/life_chances.aspx?ID=596

154

Memorandum submitted by Liz Vickerie, Head of Support for Learning, and Kerrigen Marriner, Head of Behaviour Support, London Borough of Tower Hamlets

1. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools;

• Greater emphasis on positive behaviour management techniques and theory in teacher training and throughout first two years in service. Further training in the connection between SEN and behaviour management and how this should influence planning and Teaching and Learning strategies. • A senior management post in each school is usually responsible for whole school behaviour and attendance but at present there is little training and support is patchy, depending on local LA expertise and availability. Many modules of the NPSL-BA and other National Strategy documents are useful but currently knowledge of these or explicit training is not incorporated into the job descriptions for these posts so a comprehensive approach is not standardised. Similiarly, there are no national standards for Learning Support Unit managers and so there are a huge variety of experience and qualifications amongst these post holders. • The recommendations of the 2009 Steer report have been generally welcomed as well thought through and based on real school experience and should be implemented.

2. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff;

• This is hugely variable from class to class, school to school, area to area. Some schools report high levels of challenging behaviour. Some of this may result from systemic problems within the school and some may arise out of a wide range of social, emotional and learning factors impacting on the behaviour of pupils. • Persistent, disruptive behaviour and verbal aggression towards staff appear to be the two most common reasons given by schools for fixed term exclusion. In our experience there has been an ongoing reduction in violent offences (including the use of weapons) leading to exclusion. • Where it occurs the impact of poor behaviour on schools and staff can be enormous leading to lowering standards and morale which can result in high staff turnover which worsens the problem. However, this can be significantly reduced with a range of effective interventions, including additional support to individual teachers struggling to manage class behaviour and/or multi-agency interventions to address the full range of factors impinging on the behaviour of individual pupils • Many inner city schools who employ a holistic and rigorous approach to whole school behaviour are effective in equipping their staff with the requisite skills to significantly reduce concerns and supporting their pupils to ensure background factors are identified and treated and they are taught the skills they need to manage their own behaviour and learn effectively. 155

3. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions;

• Effective approaches need to include a range of activities from whole school strategies, groupwork and individual training and coaching for staff as well as support for parents and effective use of data analysis that enables schools to pin point areas of concern and put appropriate measures in place. • Most important is a robust whole school policy which incorporates an effective staged reward and sanction scheme, consistency of approach between staff, and clarity for pupils about expectations and how they can make reparation if things go wrong. • For pupils whose behaviour is effected by factors external to the school, there is a need for a range of school-based and LA interventions which emphasise early identification and intervention and use a clear system to allocate Lead Professionals to assess needs (using CAF) and utilise all available agencies, e.g youth services, parental engagement, LA support services, medical services etc to bring about change in the pupil’s life. • LA multi-agency panels that provide schools with advice and support are very effective in managing the most hard to engage and challenging pupils and their families. A holistic approach is essential. • Internal exclusion (within the school) can be effective at the end of a ladder of sanctions. Removing a pupil from a school needs to be avoided if at all possible as it is only likely to reinforce a sense of disengagement and further alienate the pupil. • Where fixed-term exclusion from a school is deemed essential this should not mean exclusion from education: the school needs to maintain involvement and consistency of school work by giving the alternative provider the school work that needs to be covered during the period of exclusion. • A short term reintegration programme (a period out of school followed by a managed reintegration) and managed moves to other schools can be highly effective in preventing permanent exclusion, if used in a positive and preventative manner with the collaboration of parents. • Schools should be allowed to retain the right to permanently exclude but a swift but clear appeals process should be retained in order to ensure due process, proper evidence and appropriate application of policy. Unfair dismissal is an issue we recognise in adult life, so it is only fair to ensure some independent advocacy for pupils in the context of permanent exclusion. • It has been extremely effective for schools to work together in partnerships to develop a shared approach to challenging behaviour, commission alternative providers and share good practice. The LA role can be to support and facilitate this but it has been important for schools to take ownership of improving attendance and behaviour in collaboration with each other and other agencies and providers. This lifts the standards in all local schools and avoids the “sink” school phenomenon.

4. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour; 156

• Providing multiple avenues for communication with school through; keyworkers, pastoral staff, email, reports, phone calls etc for both positive and negative behaviours. • Behaviour policies should be provided to parents in a clear and easily understandable format and provide opportunities for regular consultation e.g. Home-school contracts that set out clear expectations and encourage the active involvement of parents. • A range of training and support for parents from informal coffee mornings, school meetings, literature/top tips through to formal parenting courses that are targeted for particularly vulnerable families.

5. How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline;

• A school’s behaviour policy needs to address the issue of how SEN and behaviour may be linked and provide clear cross reference to the SEN policy and avenues of information and referral that are available for staff and parents. • Regular training on the overlap between the two needs to be available for all staff and parents.

6. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour;

• A respite/reintegration facility can be highly effective in providing a ‘time-out’ for pupils in order to ensure their needs are correctly assessed and some intensive work can be carried out to address these and put longer-term strategies in place in the mainstream context. This works best when communication between school and facility is very clear, well planned, maintained throughout the placement, expectations are established and linked to assessment outcomes and a clear time period identified. • A very small number of pupils with complex and multiple needs may not be able to be included full-time in the mainstream environment but wherever possible they should maintain contact with mainstream through part-time timetables or the availability of appropriate college courses. It is essential that individual programmes are monitored to ensure access to a range of subjects and options, including the acquisition of basic skills: a limited curriculum will only further reduce the life chances of these pupils. • Alternative providers work best when they are local, have a good relationship and knowledge of the referring schools, are able to access the range of LA and third sector services available in the local area and employ a range of staff who are able to address the pastoral AND academic needs of the pupils. They need to be subject to the same rigorous challenge and monitoring of standards as schools. Health and safety issues are paramount and the staff working in them need good access to multi-agency support and professional development

7. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools; 157

• These links are clear and well established. The National Strategy programme for improving Behaviour and Attendance has compiled very compelling statistics to prove that a school that has low overall attendance and a high level of persistent absence will also have a high level of fixed term (internal and external) exclusion and low staff confidence in tackling challenging behaviour effectively. These statistics are gathered from all the schools the Strategy has engaged with over the last 6 years. There are many good practice case studies available. Tower Hamlets has had several published, including in the Steer report.

• Detaining pupils on an ad-hoc basis after school will undermine relationships with parents and will therefore undermine the effectiveness of any programme to address the problematic behaviours. • The power to search pupils is already adequate and can be incorporated into a school’s behaviour policy. The issue is more with staff confidence and training in enacting these powers. • There should be more emphasis on the clearly established principle that reward and positive behaviour management are more effective in reducing challenging behaviour in the longer term than the highest level of sanction. An example would be the high number of pupils who are excluded for a second time after a permanent exclusion vs the number of pupils who complete their education after a programme of positive prevention and a small number of short, fixed-term exclusions.

September 2010

158

Memorandum submitted by SHS

1. Executive Summary

• Support to resolve issues at home critical to improving behaviour at school: building necessary bridge between home and school. Need to build trust with child and parents: takes time, particularly for most complex families.

• This type of support enables teachers to teach and gets parents to take responsibility to manage child’s behaviour.

• Pertinent to have someone to work across teams of professionals to ensure parents/ carers understand what is being asked and are able to contribute, especially as these families often have very complex needs and struggle to engage

• Does not always need to be a big intervention to make a massive difference (see case study in 3e)

2. Introduction to SHS SHS works to enable children to thrive and achieve. It is a specialist agency that recruits, trains and manages independent practitioners who are based in schools and work with children and families with serious issues at home that impact adversely on the children’s education (and often that of their classmates). SHS practitioners are often able to intervene early, before those problems become intractable issues for the school, the families and wider society. These interventions lead to a number of outcomes including: improved behaviour; increased attendance; better transition between schools; better parental engagement.

As a charity we now have practitioners working in 270 schools - nursery, primary, secondary, special needs and pupil referral units. In 2009-10 SHS supported 20,000 children, young people and families in some 23 Local Authorities.

3. Factual information

a) How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools? Having a consistent approach to standards which all school staff adhere to is crucial. All school staff need to work as a team to support positive behaviour. For example, a teacher passing on positive comments regarding a child to the SHS practitioner which they relate to the parent at the school gate. This encourages parents to talk to their children about school and their learning, which has a proven positive effect on a child’s educational achievement at school1.

However, it is also important to recognise that for positive behaviour to be consistently demonstrated, children and young people need to be ready to learn, socially, emotionally and physically. If not addressed, issues outside of school can become a significant barrier to learning and a key cause behind poor behaviour.

1:Prof. Charles Desforges & Alberto Abouchaar, ‘Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Acheivement and Adjustment: A Literature Review’, DfES Research Report 433, 2003 A Literature Review 159

Teachers need support in order to recognise the underlying issues that often sit behind poor behaviour. Tied to a school timetable, they do not have the capacity to engage with the home effectively, particularly with families who are hard to contact. Nor do teachers have the training to be able to deal with the complex issues behind poor behaviour, such as domestic violence, poor mental health and/or substance abuse.

Our evidence shows that having a SHS practitioner frees teachers to focus on teaching and learning, knowing that the underlying issues are being dealt with. Making this work effectively needs a good working relationship between the practitioner and the teacher with regular updates and positive feedback to the family.

Case study

Overview: Dan, aged four in Reception, was becoming increasingly disruptive. The mother, despite being a trained nursery nurse, appeared to spend very little time with the son and refused to engage with school. Dan’s father lived with mum and two children however they were no longer having a relationship - he was seeing someone else.

Actions: SHS practitioner made contact with both parents. Dan’s father was struggling to curb the aggressive and often self-endangering behaviour of his son and felt angry when his son had annoyed him. Having met mum, the practitioner became aware that she was struggling with the living situation of her ex-partner but he refused to move out. He was violent to both her and Dan. Mum was not coping well and found it difficult to engage with Dan.

Weekly sessions were held with Dan to enable him to talk through how he felt and his home situation. It was clear that he was extremely upset by the breakdown in the relationship between mum and dad and felt guilty. This made him want to hurt himself. Through the sessions he was able to understand that it was not his fault and to try and learn to cope in a different way. The practitioner referred the father to the mental health team who referred him to Relate.

A Common Assessment Framework (CAF) was initiated to coordinate further support for the family and to encourage the mother to engage with D and school. A referral was also made to Social Services. Once Social Services visited the family were allocated a social worker.

Outcomes: By acting as a bridge between the two parents, the child, school and Social Services, the practitioner increased the support and services available to them. Dan’s home life was clearly having a significant impact on his behaviour and without support his behaviour was not likely to improve.

After a few months he became more settled. School staff reported he was less disruptive and that they were more able to support him because of an awareness of his home situation. Dan still meets the SHS practitioner every week for an hour to discuss how he is feeling, while awaiting a CAHMS assessment. Work with the father continues-a referral has been made to a housing organisation to see if he can get alternative accommodation.

160

b) The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

Across 270 schools last year in six English regions, our practitioners worked with 3,719 parents and children on behavioural issues undertaking 15,270 interventions. It was our third highest area of work. Consistently poor behaviour can be very demoralising for teachers who feel that they do not have capacity to follow-up on behavioural issues in enough depth and therefore find it hard to break the cycle of poor behaviour. It can be extremely time-consuming for the senior leadership team who are often pulled down into the minutia of the more serious issues. This leaves them unable to support teachers more broadly with lower levels of behaviour which can be just a disruptive for teachers and students. Our research has shown that an SHS practitioner can save 20% of a head teacher’s/ senior management team’s time. Having a trusted individual in the school who focuses on the more in-depth support needs of children/ families with issues such as poor behaviour enabled them to focus their time on teaching. c) Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions

As already highlighted, SHS’s evidence stresses the need to address the root cause of poor behaviour issues within the family/ home environment, rather than just the immediate presenting behaviour.

There is a risk of a huge increase in permanent exclusions if the right to have an appeal is taken away. This appeal process gives parents and other professionals the opportunity to demonstrate underlying issues that may sit beneath presenting behaviour such as bereavement or poor mental health. It provides an objective, neutral space for these issues to be taken into account and for other possible strategies to be examined.

Case Study

Overview: The SHS practitioner was approached by Joyce, mother of Sam, who was desperate to get someone to listen to her regarding her son and his behaviour. Sam was being threatened with exclusion from his secondary school because of his behaviour.

Joyce had been trying to “get things done” in the school for some time and felt that no one was listening to her. She felt unable to engage with the school, exacerbated by a previous refusal for her elder son who had attended the school previously.

Action: Because of her concerns about Sam’s behaviour, the SHS practitioner recommended Joyce discuss it with her GP. Following a number of tests, Sam was diagnosed with possible epilepsy and a suggestion of ADHD. Sam’s interactions with his classmates and peers were monitored. He was getting into fights regularly which usually ended up with him spending all his breaks outside the head teacher’s office.

161

The SHS practitioner persuaded Joyce to engage with CAHMS and Sam was referred to a paediatrician. The SHS practitioner approached the school nurse to run a parenting course based on the Incredible Years programme to support Joyce and other parents.

Outcomes: Sam is far more settled in school now and causes far less disruption in his class. His attendance is 96%. She is now recognised as Sam’s official carer, which means that she can be on hand for him as soon as he displays erratic behaviour. d) Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

SHS practitioners do this in a number of ways, including:

• one-to-one support regarding practical strategies to manage behaviour (routines/ boundaries/ school preparation); • joint action plans between school and home – co-ordinated by SHS practitioner; • parenting classes (informal and evidence based, e.g. Incredible Years) • respite for parents/ carers: co-ordinating this support; • informal meetings - coffee mornings etc which provide parents/ carers with a neutral space

Case study

Overview: Eva is a single mum with four children, all boys, under the age of ten: a set of triplet’s age seven and an older brother age eight. School noticed that the boys were regularly late or absent from school for no apparent reason and their behaviour could often be disruptive to other children. When they were in school, they were often without adequate resources such as writing materials. Eva talked about the boys’ behaviour at home which was becoming increasingly problematic and she felt unable to cope at times. The family had previously had a social worker.

Action: Following an initial meeting, the SHS practitioner made a follow-up appointment with Eva which she did not keep. To put Eva at ease the practitioner then invited her out for coffee to explain her role in more detail. Following this successful meeting they met formally two days later to discuss the family situation to ascertain how best they could be supported.

The practitioner took Eva to a local agency called Eastside Academy that provided behavioural and emotional support to boys, along with strategies to support parents. She found the agency helpful and they met with staff members to agree a joint working plan for the family.

The children attended an after school programme at Academy three days a week; received academic support (often 1-1); and had access to a psychotherapist. Eva started parenting classes.

The SHS practitioner gave Eva details of the Country Holiday Fund that offer weekend, half term and summer breaks so that she could have respite during the 162

holidays. She also put her in touch with a Multiple Birth Groups which she did not realise existed and was keen to join. Meeting the SHS practitioner every few weeks has given Eva consistency and somewhere to talk through and reinforce the strategies she is learning to support the children’s behaviour. Such things as setting boundaries and routines for bed times, meals and morning are discussed. The practitioner has also met Eva to bring her boys to and from school.

Outcomes: Over a few months this support provided Eva with tools to support her children and manage their behaviour more effectively - she now feels more in control at home. The behaviour of all four children has improved and their attendance is now over 90% (was below 70%). She is currently considering two summer holiday options she has been given. e) How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

Teaching staff often do not have the time and capacity to effectively diagnose SEN. Sometimes it can be a very simple case (as demonstrated in the case study below) such as child needing glasses that has not been noticed by teachers or parents. One- one support provided by SHS practitioners, who are working with other specialists within the community, allows the appropriate time and resources to making the right judgement so that wrong diagnoses are not made or key symptoms missed. As our practitioners work with both the home and school, they can see if similar issues are repeated across both areas.

Case Study

Overview: Following an incident where Andrew was involved in some bad behaviour with his friends he was referred to the SHS practitioner. His teacher felt he had the potential to do really well but was making some bad choices. He had recently told the head that his mum had had surgery and his dad had suffered a stroke. His older sister was very supportive and attended the parent/ teacher consultation.

Action: The practitioner developed a series of one to one sessions (held every week for over twelve weeks) to support Andrew to resolve some key areas of his behaviour: Agreed targets were:

• Improve behaviour by staying away from friends in lesson time; concentrating on own work • Improve literacy by using Vocabulary, Connectives, Openers and Punctuation (VCOP); asking the teacher if he does not understand.

These sessions provided an opportunity to discuss his parents’ progress. Andrew said he was aware that he had been making poor choices by playing with his friends in lesson times as well as getting into fights. By setting targets for each session he could see his progress against the original targets. He specifically wanted help with his literacy. He said he had trouble seeing the board in class and felt his family did not take this seriously. The practitioner then contacted mum and asked her to take him for an eye test. The following week he was told he was severely short sighted and needed glasses.

163

The focus of the sessions became ‘up level’ it using VCOP. This enabled him to write a story, something he struggled with because of his poor comprehension and planning skills.

Outcomes: Andrew’s behaviour improved dramatically. His teacher’s said that he was ‘a changed boy’. He was able to explain to his friends that he wanted to get good grades and did not want them to distract him during lesson time. He got glasses and can now able to see the board clearly. The class teacher marked a piece of work which he had worked with the SHS practitioner to ‘up level’. It had been raised from a level 3a to a 4a. f) The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

Alternative provision is sometimes necessary where strategies to keep students in mainstream provision have not worked. However, the key to ensuring that this is successful is to ensure that the whole family is supported throughout this process. It can work well when there is a SHS practitioner based in the alternative provision (see case study) whom can provide support for student and family throughout this period and also link up with practitioners in mainstream provision to ensure successful reintegration.

It is critical that families know how they can support their child through this process. Parents will often feel like failures as well and there is a risk of them feeling alienated/ defensive. There’s a need to ensure that they have some sense of control about improving the situation.

Case study

Overview: Anna was a Year 8 student at a pupil referral unit (PRU). She was a confident student, during lessons and socially. She was excluded from her previous school for behaviour issues, non-attendance and non-engagement. In recent weeks Anna had been unable to manage in the classroom and spent more time working one on one with support staff. Her attendance dropped dramatically and when she did attend she was often late.

Her mum came across aggressively and was inconsistent. The family had been heavily involved with Social Services around safeguarding issues with Anna and they were moving ahead with proceedings to remove her from the home.

Action: The main aim was to encourage Anna to return to education and to get mum to engage with what was going on, and access support services.

During a home visit, Anna told the SHS practitioner that she wanted to spend her time with her family. A joint home visit with the SEN Planning and Placement Officer was arranged to discuss options for residential school placement. The SHS practitioner also contacted ‘Building Bridges’ who could work with Anna outside of school. At mum’s request, the SHS practitioner contacted the social worker regularly to find out the dates of meetings and to confirm plans. With the SHS practitioner liaising it was possible to enable mum to understand the steps being taken and be involved in the process. 164

Outcomes: ‘Building Bridges’ engage with Anna to increase her attendance at meetings, linking mum in to try and maximise her engagement with Anna. Although Alice’s attendance at school has been erratic it is much improved.

g) Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

The less a student attends, the more likely that their self-esteem and confidence in their academic ability will suffer. Poor behaviour in the classroom can often be used as a defence mechanism to cover up for lack of confidence which the previous case demonstrates.

4. Recommendations for action by the Government or others which the submitter would like the committee to consider for inclusion in its report to the House.

It is rare a child or young person “kicks-off” for no reason. There is frequently a correlation between poor behaviour and challenging home circumstances. Recent evidence (see CEDAR and evaluation of PSA pilots) and the work of SHS since 1984 have shown that the SHS practitioner/ Parent Support Adviser role is a critical service to improving behaviour of children and young people in school and Government must continue to be committed to it.

Some specific reasons for making this recommendation are:

• Critical to have interventions that can work with families to address underlying issues at home that often cause poor behaviour in children and young people in school (parents/ carers with mental health issues, domestic violence, substance abuse, poor housing etc). This bridging support, through a SHS practitioner, allows teachers to teach and children and young people to maximise their chances of thriving and achieving. • Addressing underlying issues at home takes a lot of time, and often these families have many complex issues and can struggle to engage with the very services that are designed to help them to support their children. This type of support has been shown to be cost effective ‘For every £1 spent on SHS services, the exchequer saves £3.35 and the rest of society saves £21.14.’2

September 2010

2 ‘An Economic Analysis of SHS’, Matrix Evidence

165

Memorandum submitted by Cornwall County Council, Rob Gasson, Senior Manager, Additional Education Provision, Children, Schools and Families

Cornwall’s population of approximately half a million (ONS Mid 2007 Population Estimate) is one of the most sparsely distributed in England, and its geographical position has ensured that it has remained one of the most remote and isolated parts of Britain. Fewer than 30% of the population live in the 9 larger settlements of over 10,000 people, compared with four-fifths in England and Wales. 46% of residents live in small communities of less than 3,000 people. Rural isolation and deprivation cause very real problems for the county’s existing schools, in particular finding ways to enable access to the full provision of vocational and specialist programmes of learning without increasing travelling and costs.

The Secondary school population of Cornwall is approximately 32,500. There are 31 secondary schools of which 16 are for pupils aged 11-16 and the remainder are for those aged 11-18.

Of our 237 Primary Schools, 189 are Community schools, 36 are C of E Voluntary Aided, 8 are C of E Voluntary Controlled, 4 are RC Voluntary Aided and 1 is Foundation.

The county maintains four Special Schools, but does not have a special school devoted to pupils with challenging behaviour (SEBD), in addition there are nineteen Area Resource Bases for special educational needs pupils based in schools. The percentage of pupils educated in special schools in Cornwall is well below the national average at 0.7% of secondary aged pupils. By comparison, the percentage of pupils with a statement of special educational need is above the national average at 5.8% in secondary schools.

The county also maintains six area based Pupil Referral Units. The Pupil Referral Units are an integral part of the Behaviour for Learning Partnership (BfL) in each area, the BfLs act as the management committee and pupil placement panels for the PRUs, these partnerships are a model of best practise and have been acknowledged as such nationally and through individual OfSTED inspections.

Cornwall Council has experienced a great deal of success in partnership with its schools working strategically and on the ground with schools to successfully reduce permanent and fixed term exclusions against a backdrop of increasing attendance improving behaviour in schools and an increase in pupils achieving 5 GCSE grades A*- C including English and Maths. Below are outlined some of the strategies that have had a significant impact in improving behaviour and attendance outcomes against a backdrop of improving outcomes and attainment for pupils.

School attendance

We provide practical help and advice on school attendance. Every school in Cornwall has an allocated Education Welfare Officer who visits regularly to discuss with senior members of staff pupil’s whom the school have concerns about. Much of the EWO work involves home visiting to support, help and advice parents/children and young people on improving attendance levels. The Service prosecutes parents in the magistrates court when they fail to ensure the regular attendance of their children at school. The service applies for Education Supervision Orders in the family court as well as attendance orders where children are not on a school roll. EWO’s supervise parenting orders and parenting contracts where parents fail to engage with the Local Authority or the school. This relationship with parents 166

provides individualised support either through an order made by the court, or on a voluntary written agreement basis between the parent and the EWO.

Attendance

Actual Absence Figures in Cornwall Absence in 1999/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ Cornwall 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Primary 5.76 6.18 6.11 6.03 5.74 5.86 6.20 5.65 5.45 5.43 (5.42, (5.84, (5.75, (5.72, (5.42, (5.47, (5.81, (5.29, (5.08, (5.09, 0.34) 0.35) 0.36) 0.30) 0.32) 0.39) 0.39) 0.36) 0.37) 0.34) Secondary 8.46 9.30 8.96 8.50 8.37 7.93 8.30 7.71 7.18 6.77 (8.04, (8.92, (8.56, (8.00, (7.58, (7.21, (7.47, (6.47 (6.01, (5.73, 0.42) 0.38) 0.40) 0.50) 0.79) 0.72) 0.83) 1.25) 1.17) 1.04) Special 8.40 11.46 8.43 9.79 8.02 9.60 10.29 7.17 8.02 7.50 (7.96, (11.42, (8.00, (8.94, (7.20, (8.12, (9.22, (5.92 (6.88, (6.92, 0.44) 0.03) 0.44) 0.85) 0.82) 1.48) 1.07) 1.25) 1.15) 0.58)

15.2 National Absence Data

Table 15.2: Actual Absence Data for England. (authorised, unauthorised) Actual Absence Figures in England Absence 1999/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ 2007/ 2008/ 2006/ in 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2007 England Primary 5.66 6.08 5.85 5.81 5.49 5.43 5.76 5.18 5.26 5.30 (5.19, (5.59, (5.40, (5.38, (5.08, (5.00, (5.30, (4.66, (4.69, (4.66, 0.47) 0.49) 0.45) 0.43) 0.41) 0.43) 0.46) 0.52) 0.57) 0.64) Secondary 8.62 9.04 8.72 8.28 8.07 7.82 8.24 7.86 7.36 7.25 (7.58, (7.98, (7.63, (7.21, (6.93, (6.57, (6.82, (6.36, (5.87, (5.76, 1.04) 1.07) 1.09) 1.07) 1.14) 1.25) 1.24) 1.50) 1.49) 1.49) Special 10.43 11.27 10.78 10.70 10.26 10.21 10.32 10.62 10.57 10.72 (8.27, (9.06, (8.78, (8.79, (8.53, (8.47, (8.66, (8.55, (8.41, (8.58, 2.16) 2.21) 2.00) 1.91) 1.73) 1.74) 1.66) 2.07) 2.16) 2.14)

167

Exclusions:

School exclusions

Local partnerships of school have worked proactively to agree common sanction and reward policies, managed move protocols, and agreed procedures for early intervention both short term and long term from their local Pupil Referral Unit (PRU).

Pupil placement panels based around each PRU have been used as a forum to share best practise amongst schools and problem solve on behaviour issues, both strategically and a pupil by pupil basis. This has resulted in a steady decline in both fixed term and permanent exclusions

We work with families and schools where pupils have been, or are likely to be, excluded. Senior managers in the EWS and behaviour support Advisors attend Behaviour for Learning Partnership meetings to support schools in reducing exclusions. The service can help by supporting a school with a managed move to another school to enable the pupil to have a fresh start in a new school. The Senior Manager will also support the re-integration of pupil’s following permanent exclusion and can provide grants for receiving schools for both managed moves and permanent exclusions. Senior managers can approve transport to support pupil’s with managed moves and re-integration following a permanent exclusion. Senior managers will attend governors discipline meetings when governors review exclusions to give a view on the appropriateness of the exclusion and information on, for example, how other schools have dealt with similar incidents. Officers can also provide information on alternative arrangements for the pupil to continue their education if the exclusion is confirmed.

Since academic year 05/06 there has been a very pleasing and steady decline in both fixed term exclusions and permanent exclusions. Data from EMS/ONE shows:

Fixed 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10

Primary 287 340 244 216 245

Secondary 2538 2285 1941 1693 1,298

Special 5 4 4 6 12 Other 13 34 107 106 124

Non LA 17 14 18 22 Providers Total 2843 2680 2310 2039 1,701

Permanent Primary 10 7 4 2 0

Secondary 87 55 40 10 13 No LA 0 4 2 0 providers Special 0 0 0 0 0 Total 97 66 46 12 13

168

Alternative Provision In Cornwall, the foundations of the Additional Education Provision service date back to the early nineties and the Home Tuition Service. In 1994, three home tuition bases were established in an attempt to coordinate home tuition arrangements and this grew to six bases by 1995. In 1998, the Home Tuition Services became the Education Out of School Service, in July 2009 this became Additional Education Provision.

In March 2006 a Single Issue Panel was established by the CYPF Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee to review the function of EOS, Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) and to make recommendations regarding the future role of EOS within the directorate, this panel was established following OfSTED inspections that had placed three of the PRUs into OfSTED Categories. The Single Issue Report was issued in November 2006 and identified 27 key issues, 11Red issues which needed to be acted on within 6 months, 15 Amber Issues which needed to be acted on within 12 months and one Green Issue which needed to be considered and reported on within 18 months.

By September 2007 two of the PRUs had successfully come out of measures, the third had been shut and restarted under the DCSF restart policy, several of the issues identified as red by the Panel had been resolved.

In September 2007 a new head of service was appointed, closer cooperation with schools was encouraged and a new management model was developed that gave direct control over admissions to PRUs to the feeder schools. This model also encouraged schools to share best practise and work effectively on behaviour issues both strategically and on a case by case basis. A strong emphasis on delivering high quality teaching, working with parents and delivering individualised education has been successfully established in Cornwalls PRUs.

The following PRUs were inspected by OfSTED

• Penwith PRU, November 2008, Judged Satisfactory with Good features. • Carrick PRU, Jan 2009 Judged Good with Outstanding features. • North Cornwall PRU, July 2009, Judged Good. • Restormel PRU, October 2009, Judged Good with Outstanding features. • Penwith PRU December 2009, monitoring visit, judged Satisfactory. • Caradon PRU May 2010, Judged Good with Outstanding features. • Kerrier PRU May 2010, Judged Good with Outstanding features.

Outcomes A robust and effective data set is employed in Cornwalls PRUs to record academic progress and attainment, this shows that pupils in Cornwalls PRUs are making significant progress from their point of entry. Attendance rates are also in the high 80s and low 90s, value added indicators are very high in vast majority of cases.

• PRUs in Cornwall have 98% of pupils achieving A-G in GCSE (2010) • 87% of pupils achieved projected grades or better, • 50% to 100% of pupils in three of the five PRUs who cater to KS4 pupils, achieved 5 GCSE at A* -G, • 13% to 40% of pupils in three of the five achieved 5 GCSE at A* to C including English and Maths.

169

With particular individual success such as;

• One student achieved 9 GCSEs • One student achieved7 GCSEs C or above including English and Maths. • One student achieved the equivalent of 10 C’s and 2 B’s at GCSE

Whilst there is a growing % of GCSE passes that reflects an emphasis on academic rigour these headline figures in no way reflect the personal success stories of many very vulnerable and challenging young people who have received their education in the PRU, and only tell a fraction of the story of the excellent work that PRU staff in Cornwall are capable of, in close partnership with schools and officers.

LA school support & school improvement

In Cornwall the approach to improving behaviour in our schools has been collaborative and holistic. It has been based on underpinning principles that behaviour cannot been improved in isolation of teaching and learning and that well informed, effective local practice should be shared amongst colleagues. The school improvement team has worked together with schools in a range of ways to bring about strong improvements in attainment and behaviour. This indicates that improvements for national indicators used to measure behaviour (permanent/ fixed term exclusions, and Ofsted behaviour grades) have not been at the expense of progress and attainment.

Outcomes for the headline measure of 5 A*- C IEM have improved strongly over the last 3 years.

%A*-C IEM Cornwall National 2008 43.4 47.2 2009 48.8 49.8 2010 53.2 (un-validated)

Ofsted grades for behaviour over the same period have also improved (despite the higher expectations for behaviour in the new inspection framework). Cornwall is one of the first and the largest local authority where behaviour in all secondary schools is good or better. Currently behaviour is rated as outstanding in 9 secondary schools and good in the remaining 22. The ratio of outstanding to good is improving all the time.

Feedback from colleagues in schools suggests that the success around behaviour has resulted from a 3 pronged strategy.

County network meetings for all secondary B&A leads are well attended and highly evaluated. These provide an opportunity for colleagues from schools across the county to receive updates on national messages, get to grips with key areas of school improvement and share effective good practice that is having impact locally. This network has developed into a strong, mutually supportive community and links are followed up individually.

The input through the network meetings is supplemented with school based support from consultants. Consultants have good relationships with colleagues in school 170

and together they identify need, agree support and implement the plans. Support varies but will cover one or more element of the processes involved in developing policy and putting this into practice. Experience shows that for this plan to have maximum impact it needs to link to teaching and learning and be identified in the school improvement plan. This ensures that it happens consistently across the school, is monitored and evaluated and links behaviour to learning rather than putting the focus on control.

The final element has been the behaviour and attendance partnerships. From the outset, Head teachers and senior leaders have been closely involved in shaping these. They have been closely aligned to PRUs and have embraced the principle that all learners are the collective responsibility of all schools in the community. They have been called Behaviour for Learning partnerships to maintain the emphasis and started small with representatives from schools and a few LA colleagues. As the partnership relationships have developed and the work has expanded, so more partners have been brought in as required to meet an identified need; again this is school-led.

Conclusion

Combining the elements of targeted school improvement, improving partnership working with schools, and sharing best practise with regard to attendance and behaviour, coupled with a high quality alternative provision (as offered by the PRUs) is at the heart of dealing with and providing for pupils with behaviour problems in school in Cornwall, and shows particular success against a backdrop of no special school for pupils with SEBD, and a higher percentage of pupils with SEN in the mainstream environment.

Having schools at the heart of the decision making process and involved in the management of the PRUs has revealed to schools what part PRUs can play in assisting them to improve behaviour overall while ensuring a high quality education is on offer for the most disaffected pupils in Cornwall.

All stakeholders in these partnerships have benefited from working closely together to identify and tackle issues around pupils’ behaviour both strategically and on a pupil by pupil basis.

Effective partnership at a local level centred around high quality PRU provision has led to a steady decline in exclusion both permanent and fixed term, alongside this trend, schools in Cornwall have increased their attendance, decreased their persistent non attendance and increased the % of pupil achieving 5 A*- C including English and Maths.

September 2010

171

Memorandum submitted by Research in Practice

1. This submission is from research in practice, a registered charity, established in 1996 – and a department within the Social Justice programme of the Dartington Hall Trust in collaboration with the University of Sheffield and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. Our Partner network is a central feature of our organisation and currently consists of 114 agencies in England and Wales, including local authorities and children’s organisations.

2. Our core work is to build the capacity for evidence-informed practice across children’s services, in order to support sound decision-making at all levels. This involves bringing together practitioner expertise with formal research evidence – creating new knowledge and new skills to improve life chances for children, young people and their families. Our Partners are central to our services. We work as the ‘team around the agency’, bringing a range of experts and resources to each Partner, working with staff at all levels on each Partners’ individual priorities. A further aim is to connect our Partners with national policy and research agendas through key strategic collaborations.

3. In order to meet these objectives we provide a wide range of accessible publications and products, a distinctive learning programme, regional tailored support for Partner agencies and a website. One of our most distinctive offers is our unique Change Project programme, an innovative knowledge exchange model of working where we recruit representatives from Partner agencies to share existing knowledge, practice, research and resources on a key topic which is then shared within the larger network in the form of a Handbook. This Handbook is the outcome of an extensive piloting process and includes theory, practice examples, tools and short films. It is also informed by a commissioned research review.

4. This most recent Handbook is called On the Path to Success: Promoting engagement in learning at Key Stage 3 (Cooke E and Barnes T, 2010). We also commissioned a research review from the National Foundation for Educational Research Disengagement and Re-engagement of Young People in Learning at Key Stage 3 (Morris M and Pullen C, 2007).

5. The Handbook is designed for managers, teachers and practitioners working with young people at risk of disengagement from learning at Key Stage 3. It aims to demonstrate how the use of research, in a range of different ways, can strengthen practice in this challenging area. Although it does not specifically address behaviour it does consider in some detail the underlying structural issues that need to be addressed in order to promote engagement in learning and thus prevent disaffection and disruptive behaviour. Engagement with and enthusiasm for learning is an absolute prerequisite for a successful educational experience at school and measures taken to promote interest and motivation at this stage are critical in averting later difficulties.

6. Our explorations with those working at a local level clearly demonstrate that access to good quality data is essential in order to have significant insights into attendance, attainment and exclusion. Data collation, and intelligent use of data is therefore an important tool for educators planning to intervene early to prevent disengagement later. 172

7. We would like to contribute to the Committee by citing some of the key findings of the review and the Handbook that have relevance to the areas on which you are seeking submissions.

Disengagement from learning

8. Frequently disengagement from learning is a prelude to challenging and disruptive behaviour that can lead to exclusion. A particular problem is the term ‘disengagement’ itself. Its widespread use might seem to imply a consensus about what constitutes a ‘normal’ pattern of engagement with learning for this age range. However, the different ways in which engagement can be measured (behavioural, emotional or cognitive) led Fredriks and colleagues to conclude, in their research review that engagement is a ‘multidimensional’ phenomenon for which there is currently no clear definition or conceptualization’ (2004).

9. The implications of these findings is that a wide understanding of what disengagement involves needs to be employed in order that preventative measures are put into place before disengagement becomes disaffection and disruption. In terms of high quality teaching practice, this involves paying attention to the child who is inattentive and unengaged as much as to the child who presents more demanding behaviour. In addition, disengagement from school should not necessarily be understood as a lack of interest in learning and may indicate some underlying family or peer difficulty. Addressing what engages individual young people is central to maintaining motivation and an interest in learning; it follows then that teaching staff that understand this and have the freedom to tailor their approach depending on the child’s needs are therefore better placed to mitigate disengagement from learning.

The significance of Key Stage 3 (ages 11 to 14)

10. Although there is a large body of evidence relating to the scale and impact of engagement at Key Stages 4 and 5, far less research focuses specifically on engagement and disengagement at this crucial stage. Yet these are vitally important years for laying the foundations for lifelong learning, influencing the important decisions pupils make at age 14 and engaging young people in the learning process. They also cover young people’s transition from primary to secondary school - a critical period in terms of educational attainment and involvement, when school may start to seem more system-driven and less personal. The research on this topic has focused on the impact of the social aspects of transition, the perceived and actual challenges of the curriculum beyond Years 6 and 7 and the structural aspects of transfer. Good communication between phases and addressing continuity in curriculum and pedagogy are approaches that have been devised to tackle this problem (Morris and Pullen, 2007). Opportunities to share skills and knowledge between the respective staff teams across Key Stage 3 – for example, shared training for Year 6 and Year 7 staff within a locality – are a useful means of supporting more successful transition (Sharp C, 2010).

11. Although many young people progress through Key Stage 3 without difficulty, a significant minority find this stage in their educational journey problematic. Potential triggers for disengagement can include transition from primary school (as above), teaching and assessment approaches, curriculum issues, the onset of adolescence and a decline in protective family factors. Certain groups are more likely to lose interest in learning than others. Strategies to engage young people have had varying 173

success - the most successful have been those that do not simply seek to address the ‘symptoms’ of disengagement but positively work to forge participation and engagement in learning. Work of this nature is critical at Key Stage 3 because of the importance of maintaining a positive and involved engagement with school activities before disengagement takes hold.

12. A particularly vulnerable group is ‘looked after’ children. There are numerous indicators of how poorly children in care do educationally in comparison with the overall population. In 2008/2009 children in care were five times more likely to be permanently excluded than their peers. Lack of stability can have a critical effect on educational engagement for this group. Exclusion from school – and permanent exclusion in particular – can place great strain on care placements and lead to disruption and even more instability. Good interprofessional communication between front-line staff from social care and education at an early stage is critical. There is good evidence that the role of the Virtual School Head has successfully raised the priority of education for looked after children with their responsibilities as ‘champions’ for this group, tracking and monitoring their progress and ensuring that all looked after children have an effective personal education plan (PEP) in place (Berridge et al, 2009).

Joe Joe, a young person being looked after by foster carers, began to become disengaged from education at his secondary school in Year 9 – he stopped completing homework, failed to attend any revision classes as the

curriculum approached Key Stage 3 SATs, and began to truant. Minor but challenging behaviour in class became increasingly frequent. The most

successful subject Joe took part in was PE - particularly rugby, for which he was thought to have a special talent. Joe was encouraged to take part

in a trial for a local under-18 Rugby League team. He was awarded a place, which allowed him to train with the team three nights a week. Both

Joe’s foster carers and his school worked hard together to encourage and support this interest, but made it clear that this opportunity had to go

hand in hand with Joe completing his work requirements at school (he was now in Year 10). Joe’s behaviour and attendance improved and his

friendship groups broadened. Now back on track, Joe has just completed his GCSEs and is expected to fulfill his targets.

Involving parents and carers

13. It is also important to recognise that learning can take place in non-formal settings, for example within families and peer groups, as well as in organised out-of-school settings. Working with parents, carers and family members as partners in their children’s learning is also crucial in engaging young people. Parents need to be engaged in actively supporting their children’s learning and development and a range of professionals need to work together in an integrated way to promote good educational outcomes for children and young people. The role of the Common Assessment Framework, where schools have been fully engaged, has been shown to engage parents and help develop trusting and positive relationships and developed a professional awareness of families’ needs (Easton et al, 2010) 174

range of needs A Family and Student Services Centre in a local authority provides a service that meets a variety of needs - learning, health and family needs - which aren’t usually found within regular LSU provision. Based within a secondary school, the Centre has a part-time social worker attached to its service and also provides drop-in clinics with local health staff. Work also takes place with families and is not solely focused on learning and behaviour problems. Unusually, students can self-refer. Because the unit is used by a variety of students with a range of needs, it is not perceived with the same degree of stigma within the school as conventional units can be.

14. In a study published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on out-of-school activities it is noted that ‘a key feature of successful projects working with excluded children was to build close relationships not just with the young people but with their families, addressing the family circumstances as well as the child’s learning needs and making education a shared enterprise between family, educator and child’ (JRF, 2007). This tells us something about the skills required in those working with this group of young people.

15. In addition well planned, multi-agency interventions need to be implemented by agencies working with the small minority that have become totally disengaged to secure their return to learning, often outside the mainstream school setting.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

16. Learning that takes place outside school is often seen as auxiliary, but it can be crucial. Although ‘alternative’ provision has been shown to have some success, longer term however the impact is less clear (Kendall et al, 2007). In one of eight studies Frankham and colleagues note that a characteristic of successful projects however was the ability to build close relationships with the young person, that is, the ability to forge a co-operative relationship, paying attention to the importance of the past experiences of young people that may have been characterized by a distrust of people in authority. What is known to work includes small classes, negotiated activities, flexible approaches, extended care and meeting the whole range of young people’s needs and aspirations. The organisations involved in the study by Frankham showed tenacity in chasing up young people and refusing to give up on them (Frankham, 2007). Other initiatives have tried other approaches. Positive Futures, a sports based initiative, funded by the Home Officer and run by Crime Concern used sport and physical activity as a way of engaging disadvantaged and the most socially excluded young people with some success (Crabbe, 2007)

We hope that this submission has conveyed to the Committee the significance of maintaining interest, motivation and enthusiasm for learning and the importance of early intervention to avert disengagement and later difficulties that often transform into difficult 175

and disruptive behavior. We would also emphasise the crucial importance of intervention at Key Stage 3. We trust that this submission will support the Committee’s work on this important topic. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised or need further details or clarification, or if we can contribute further to the Committee in any way, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Elizabeth Cooke Knowledge Manager

September 2010

References

Berridge D, Henry L Jackson S and Turney D (2009) Looked after and Learning: Evaluation of the Virtual School Head Pilot London: DCSF

Cooke E and Barnes T (2010) On the Path to Success: Promoting engagement in learning at Key Stage 3 Dartington: research in practice

Crabbe T (2007) Positive Futures: Putting the pieces together? Positive Futures monitoring and evaluation report: Manchester

Frankham J, Edwards Kerr D, Humphrey N and Roberts L (2007) School Exclusions: Learning partnerships outside mainstream education. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC and Paris AH (2004) ‘School Engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence’ Review of Educational Research, 74 (1)

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007) Experiences of Poverty and Educational Disadvantage. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Online version available.

Kendall S, Wilkin A, Kinder K, Gulliver C, Harland J, Martin K and White R (2007) Effective Alternative Provision. (DCSF research report RW002). London: DCSF

Morris M and Pullen C (2007) Disengagement and Re-engagement of Young People in Learning at Key Stage 3 Dartington: NFER/research in practice

Sharp C et al (2010) Ensuring that all children and young people make sustained progress and remain fully engaged through all transitions between key stages C4EO/NFER

Thomson P and Russell L (2007) Mapping the Alternatives to Permanent Exclusion. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Wikeley F, Bullock K, Muschamp Y and Ridge T (2007) Educational Relationships outside School: Why access is important. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

176 Memorandum submitted by Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

Introduction 1. The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to submit written evidence. We would be pleased to provide any further information that may be of assistance.

Role of the YJB

2. The role of the YJB is to oversee the youth justice system in England and Wales. It works to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18, and to ensure that custody for them is safe, secure, and addresses the causes of their offending behaviour. The statutory responsibilities of the YJB include:

• advising Ministers on the operation of, and standards for, the youth justice system • monitoring the performance of the youth justice system • purchasing places for, and placing, children and young people remanded or sentenced to custody • identifying and promoting effective practice • making grants to local authorities and other bodies to support the development of effective practice • commissioning research and publishing information.

3. While the YJB is responsible for supporting and overseeing the performance of youth justice services including multi-agency Youth Offending Teams and secure estate providers it does not directly manage any of the services.

4. As part of its overarching objectives to prevent offending and reduce reoffending the YJB works with partners to help secure access to employment, education and training for young people, both in the community as well as for those making the transition from custody back into the community. The YJB also provides clear specifications for the delivery of education and training programmes within the secure estate.

Engagement with education and links with the criminal justice system

5. The association between engagement in education, training and employment (ETE) and offending behaviour is widely recognised. YJB data for 2008/09 found that 28%1 of all young offenders in the youth justice cohort were not engaged in suitable education, training or employment. Within this cohort ETE engagement for young people on custodial sentences is on average 15% lower than their peers on community orders. Information gathered from Youth Offending Team (YOT) assessments of young people clearly indicates that there are established links between the educational achievement, inclusion and ability of young people in the youth justice system and their risk of offending and re-offending. An audit of young people involved with YOTs published in 2003 found that of the young people:

25% had Special Educational Needs (60% of which with statements) 42% currently or previously experienced school exclusion 41% were regularly truanting 42% were under achieving at school 80% of the custodial cohort did not have the skills for employment

Furthermore, a study in the North East with the regions YOTs showed that over 40% of young offenders also have an identifiable learning disability or difficulties (2006).

6. Engagement in ETE is proven to reduce the risk of offending and re-offending. Therefore, closer working between education and training providers and youth justice services on engaging young people is likely to reduce offending behaviour.

1 Youth Justice Annual Workload Data 2008/09 177 7. It is therefore important to address the behaviour and attitudes of school age young people before they become extreme and the young person disengages. 8. Tackling disruptive or bad behaviour should be part of a wider comprehensive school management programme, managed in a consistent and transparent way. Teachers need to feel that they have the management’s support when tackling problem behaviour, and should also feel that there are systems in place which they can follow and will be understood by young people.

9. Efforts to identify the underlying reasons behind young people’s behaviour should be maximised so that they can be supported where possible to remain in mainstream education. This support could come from staff within the school, or with the assistance of external agencies to whom the young person and family may already be known – Youth Inclusion Projects, Youth Inclusion Support Panels, children’s services, health organisations etc as appropriate.

Early identification and intervention 10. The YJB favours the early identification of young people with behavioural needs and supports a multi-agency approach to tackling the causes, through working partnerships between schools, YOTs, children’s services, health services, the police and relevant third sector organisations.

11. Within the youth justice system there are a number of effective systems for early intervention when a child may be considered at risk of offending. In relevant cases referral to youth justice prevention services should be considered along with the wider diversionary programmes such as Think Family projects and family intervention services. However this is dependent on schools seeing the long term benefit to the young person, being prepared to put effort into reengaging them, and having effective links with external agencies which can provide targeted support.

12. If these links are properly established and used effectively they would promote awareness of the support available – meaning that parents could seek help when they need it, because they are aware that it exists and how to access it (anecdotally, over 80% of parents with young people in the criminal justice system engage with parenting support voluntarily). Some agencies provide targeted support to the whole family and these are adept at engaging parents and families and supporting them to succeed. Occasionally schools may find it beneficial to refer a young person and their family to such a service when they cannot engage them themselves. The effective development of links to services providing targeted support, where they are available, can go a long way to ensuring that young people and their families are engaged successfully.

13. In terms of early identification, the YJB advocates targeted, evidence-based prevention programmes such as Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) and Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs) to help prevent young people entering the youth justice system and to help support their engagement with mainstream education. These programmes are based on a risk and protective factor model that recognises poor educational attendance and attainment as particularly strong risk factors related to a raised likelihood of offending.

14. YIPs are tailor-made early prevention programmes for 8 to 17-year-olds who are at high risk of involvement in crime or anti-social behaviour. Young people on the YIP are identified through a number of different agencies, including the YOT, police, children and family services, local education authorities, schools, neighbourhood wardens and anti-social behaviour teams. YIPs have a number of key aims including to increase access for engaged young people to mainstream and specialist services, especially in relation to education, training and employment.

15. Where appropriate YJB supports referrals being considered from schools to prevention programmes and children and families services before considering exclusion, as part of an overall support package provided to the child and/or their family in order to prevent their total disengagement with education.

Avoiding the unnecessary criminalisation of children and young people 16. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently amended its ‘writing up’ rules in relation to incidents in schools. This has allowed schools more leeway in determining how 178 to handle incidents without the formal intervention of the police, and has allowed some schools to develop effective restorative justice protocols and practices. Where used restorative processes have proved to be a very successful means of resolving conflict, as they hold young people to account for their behaviour, and allow them to address the harm they have caused directly with the ‘victim’ or ‘victims’ of their behaviour. However, this approach is only effective when it is applied consistently across the school and in agreement with all the relevant parties.

The future of education provision

17. It is important that where schools are given greater autonomy, this does not compromise their ability to work with other local services to tackle the causes and consequences of poor behaviour. Safer Schools Partnerships have been a particularly good example of how schools and other local services such as the police work closely together to improve behaviour and attendance, reduce crime and antisocial behaviour within the school and its neighbourhood and improve community cohesion. 18. We need to ensure that alongside increasing autonomy efforts are maintained by schools to work constructively with the most disruptive and disadvantaged pupils to avoid disengagement and exclusion where possible. The proposed pupil premium may help with this but careful consideration needs to be given to how these new measures will impact on behavioural issues within the school and local neighbourhood. 19. When considering alternative provision and the support that young people with behavioural problems receive it is important that we change the perceptions to ensure that it does not operate on a ‘no way back’ principle. All local schools need to engage with the available alternative education providers with the expectation that young people will be re-integrated back into mainstream provision at the earliest opportunity.

Special Educational Needs 20. It is particularly important to consider young people with special educational needs. Significant numbers of young people with special educational needs can end up in alternative provision and in turn involved in the criminal justice system, when their needs have either not been identified properly, or they have not been met appropriately in mainstream provision. Subject to the forthcoming Green Paper on SEN, it is imperative that special educational needs are identified early and managed appropriately. This means that young people who have SEN are given support to encourage and facilitate their learning. 21. When a young person’s SEN goes undiagnosed or unsupported they are at risk of becoming disengaged and potentially disruptive. Therefore it is important to acknowledge their enhanced needs as part of the behaviour management policy – for example young people with autistic spectrum disorders or speech and language difficulties may need to have their behaviour managed separately, but in line with the behaviour management policy of the school. New duties under the Apprenticeships Act 22. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, has made local authorities responsible for ensuring the education outcomes of young people detained in secure accommodation (particularly where they have special educational needs) and especially upon their release from custody. Schools will play an important part in ensuring these post custodial responsibilities are met. 23. We now have the opportunity to influence outcomes for young people by ensuring that proper mechanisms are in place to allow young people leaving custody to have a place in an educational establishment as soon as they are released. This requires timely planning and effective links between the local authority (that has a duty to ensure the education outcomes) and the schools which can provide them. Conclusion

24. The YJB’s objectives are working with partners to achieve a continuing reduction in first time entrants to the youth justice system; a continuing reduction in the frequency and seriousness of reoffending; and improving victim and public confidence in the youth justice system. 25. The effective management of behaviour of young people though schools and effective partnership working with external organisations is in everyone’s interests - improved 179 outcomes for children mean that there should be fewer young people entering the criminal justice system, which will also have an effect on the adult criminal justice system and would reduce the occurrence of intergenerational problems. 26. Along with this, proper engagement of young people through school partnerships, consistent behaviour management and appropriate referral will have a more immediate positive effect on incidences of anti-social behaviour and problems within the community as well as within the school environment. 27. However, these problems cannot be tackled in isolation – it is rare that a child exhibits problematic behaviour without there being some underlying contributory factors. While recognising fully that schools have to be able to respond to problem behaviour, by having proper systems in place to where appropriate can be used to intervene early and support young people through their problem behaviour, outcomes for all will be improved. Successful intervention can potentially have a very long term impact.

September 2010 180

Memorandum submitted by the Joint Epilepsy Council

Background

1. The Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) is the umbrella body for 26 epilepsy organisations operating in the UK and Ireland. The JEC also provide the secretariat to the APPG on Epilepsy (APPGE).

2. Epilepsy is a common serious neurological condition characterised by recurrent, unprovoked epileptic seizures, controlled for many, but not cured, with anti-epileptic drugs. It affects almost half a million people in the UK, that is one in every 131, or 705 in an average constituency. Surgery works in some cases but is only made available to around one-quarter of the children who would benefit from it.

3. 990 people in England die every year of epilepsy-related causes. About 365 of those deaths are young adults and children. Of the total number of deaths, about 400 per year are avoidable. 59% of all childhood deaths are considered avoidable. Although outside the scope of this Inquiry, much needs to be done to improve epilepsy health services.

Introduction

4. This submission mostly addresses your term of reference relating to “How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline” although it should be noted that the Department does not formally regard epilepsy as a condition that gives rise to special educational needs.

5. There is a long history of children with epilepsy not realising their potential in mainstream schools. In the past, epilepsy was poorly understood but we now have the knowledge to support many of these children much more successfully and without major resource implications. The problem has been in translating our modern knowledge into practice in our schools. This could change with more support from the Department. Training and information for education staff is readily available.

6. Apart from the benefits to the child, improved support will assist, in concert with the improvements required in NHS services, in driving down the high unemployment rate and consequent benefit dependency of people with epilepsy.

About 60,000 young people under 18 in the UK have epilepsy in the UK

Half of these children are estimated to be under-achieving academically in 181

relation to their intellectual level

Approximately 44,000 children with epilepsy are in education

8. On average, there will be one child with epilepsy in each primary school and six children in each secondary school. Because of this roughly even distribution, epilepsy is not usually recognised as a significant issue in most schools.

Effects of epilepsy on achievement

9. In the case of many of these children in mainstream schools, their epilepsy is only partially controlled. Even for those children whose epilepsy is well- controlled, the effects of the powerful anti-epileptic drugs they are taking include impaired memory and attention and often affect their educational attainment.

10. The effects of epilepsy, which is a collection of syndromes rather than a single condition, are sometimes obvious (e.g. collapse and trembling) and sometimes hard to identify (e.g. absence seizures, where a child may seem wilfully not to be paying attention but is, in fact, unable to). The nature and degree of the effects of seizure activity and medication varies between children and over time.

11. Parents and schools therefore often have the challenge of supporting children with wide variations in seizure rates, cognitive ability (there is substantial comorbidity with learning difficulties) and behaviours (there is substantial comorbidity with ADHD and autism spectrum disorders), presumed to be driven in part by the underlying epileptic activity in the brain.

12. Not all children with epilepsy have special educational needs but individual assessment is required to establish the nature and degree of the impact on their educational attainment and how this might be addressed effectively. That individual assessment is not normally available.

Effects of epilepsy on behaviour

13. There is a recurrent problem with teachers failing to understand the impact on behaviour that epilepsy has. When there is a clear comorbidity with learning difficulties, autism or ADHD, behaviour issues may more easily be identified as stemming from these conditions. However, in most cases, this comorbidity does not exist and behavioural issues owing to the seizures themselves or the stress placed upon the child by the associated difficulties of stigma, exclusion and cognitive challenges are not recognised as stemming from their condition.

14.

Examples of behaviour directly or indirectly attributable to epilepsy 182

include:

School absences Fatigue Stress Low self-esteem Alienation Depression or hyperactivity related to medication Bouts of repetitive or strange behaviour Inattention Inability to concentrate Anger or frustration (often related to exclusion from physical activities and school trips or peer, stigma-related, social exclusion) Various responses to the bullying often experienced by children with epilepsy

15. A lack of understanding can lead to admonition from the teacher and other negative responses that create further difficulties for the child already struggling with these other aspects of their condition. The lack of understanding also ensures that the support that may help to overcome the problem is not forthcoming and that the behaviour continues and may be exacerbated. Continuing difficult behaviour can eventually lead to exclusion.

16.

Often teachers don’t fully understand why a child may appear to lack effort or attention and achieve poorly. Variable behaviour can be misinterpreted as being wilful.” Professor Brian Neville (former Prince of Wales’s Chair of Childhood Epilepsy)

17. It is difficult to separate the failure to understand and properly address behavioural issues that may arise with children with epilepsy from the more general failure to support them to reach the level of attainment indicated by their intellectual capacity. These failures are inter-related. Good educational support at school will reduce the secondary behavioural challenges.

Departmental position

18. Epilepsy is defined by the Department as a purely medical condition, in the same category as asthma or diabetes. The comparison with asthma and diabetes is badly flawed. With the proper management of medication, a large majority of children with asthma and diabetes will have little or no educational challenges arising from their condition. That is simply not the case for children with epilepsy.

19.

183

There is no reference to epilepsy in the Department’s key SEN documents, The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice and Removing Barriers to Achievement. This latter states that every child has the right to a good education and the opportunity to fulfil their potential. This is not currently the case for children with epilepsy.

20. Departmental lack of recognition actively hampers the teacher by failing to provide advice. There is a serious gap in the advice provided by the Department to the teacher.

21. We are encouraged that Minister Sarah Teather has offered to meet with us in the Autumn and by a dialogue with the Department which included the statements that “there is no question that children with epilepsy should be provided with the appropriate support in school to help them make progress and fulfil their potential” and that “epilepsy is a medical condition which frequently has an impact on learning and well-being".

22. However, no change in the Departmental position has so far been signalled. We have not had time to consider carefully the new Green Paper but hope that it will prove to be an opportunity to win a better service for children with epilepsy.

Failure to implement Warnock

23. It is remarkable that the following extract from the key Warnock Report into special education of 1978 remains as valid today as it was at the time. The actions proposed by Warnock still need implementation. Note that the behavioural issue is clearly recognised by Warnock.

24.

1978 Warnock Report

“11.43 …. We consider that every effort should be made to inform staff in schools and colleges about the facts of epilepsy, how it may be controlled by drugs, what the side effects of these drugs may be and how to manage seizures should they occur, in order to create the right attitudes to children with epilepsy. Lack of full knowledge may cause a child’s activities to be unduly restricted and if the school does not know about the existence of the condition the child may run unnecessary risks. This is an instance where mutual confidence and understanding between parents, doctors and teachers is particularly important.

11.44 Even where satisfactory control of seizures by anticonvulsants is achieved, many children with epilepsy may have serious problems in concentration and behaviour, which affect their learning….Their particular difficulties are not always recognised by schools and colleges, and better arrangements for reviewing their progress are needed….if these children are to be helped to develop their potential to the full.”

184

25. Would the Select Committee kindly ask the Department to finally implement this aspect of the Warnock report?

Pilot training outcomes

26. The National Centre for Young People with Epilepsy (NCYPE) recently reported on a pilot scheme, “Champions for Childhood Epilepsy”, which gave free basic epilepsy training to one member of school staff in 21 schools in the Tandridge area of Surrey. An immediate direct result of the pilot was that two young people were referred for assessment and another has been placed on more effective medication.

27. The pilot revealed that few (if any) teachers understood, prior to training, the impacts epilepsy and medication can have on learning and behaviour. After the training, they were all happy to review the monitoring arrangements for these students.

28. One school involved in the pilot commented: “The students with epilepsy are explaining to the others how it affects them and how they feel when they’re recovering…..Who better to answer questions than the person who experiences it?”

29.

NCYPE chief executive David Ford said: “Despite huge medical advances being made in recent years, epilepsy is still very much misunderstood….If the pilot phase of our campaign, which covered a small proportion of young people with epilepsy, can change these young lives, imagine what it could achieve across the country.”

30. The voluntary sector has the answers to the training issues but to roll out these initiatives throughout the country requires support. Support and advice is available from JEC member organisations the NCYPE, Epilepsy Action and others.

Ofsted report

31. We appreciate there has been some criticism of the widely publicized Ofsted report into special needs and disability which reported that “inspectors found many pupils would not be identified as having special educational needs if schools focused on improving teaching and learning for all.”

32. If Ofsted is right, we incline to the view that there must be something wrong in a system that finds it so hard to support children with epilepsy but not so difficult to support children who simply need better teaching.

Request for support and offer to give oral evidence

185

33. We ask the Select Committee if it will consider making recommendations that will improve the understanding of and the support available to children with epilepsy with behavioural issues in our mainstream schools.

34. We do not wish to be prescriptive however we believe that a pupil with epilepsy should have a right to an individual assessment of educational support needs and behavioural issues. We also believe that the Department should commit to raising the educational offer to children with epilepsy by bringing into effect the actions laid out in paras. 11.43 and 11.44 of the 1978 Warnock Report into special education.

35. We would be happy to give oral evidence.

September 2010 186

Memorandum submitted by Croydon Department of Children, Young People and Learners

1. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools;

I will give evidence from Croydon Department of Children, Young People and Learners (CDCYPL) on the work across our schools to promote positive behaviour in our schools, pupil referral units and academies.

At present support and reinforcement of positive behaviour in schools seems to fall under the umbrella of the whole school approach. Although an ideal this model fails to take into account the different aspects of service delivery (staff training and confidence) and quality (the experience for pupils). The support for positive behaviour at a strategic level wills the development of change-management and service delivery models that are explicit in improving behaviour. At present schools are often given –dated or poorly designed models to implement which focus on analysis rather than the interaction of the system. Greater focus for Head Teachers and Behaviour specialists on system design rather than techniques will be a key factor in improving positive behaviour in schools. Work in Croydon schools has focused on helping develop behaviour strategies that acknowledge what schools already do and then to recognise gaps in service for the school community. Once a gap is identified it is important to build new capabilities and skills to create or modify the system to close the gap and improve behaviour.

The use of preventative methods to stop bad behaviour escalating has been lacking in the models of behaviour that schools in reality adopt. The use of the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) was an excellent idea poorly executed by the then DCSF, as this did on-going support from the latest research base. The Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project (TaMHS) has helped to rejuvenate aspects of SEAL whilst allowing schools to build bespoke capabilities to enable them to meet the needs of pupils with a range of behaviour needs.

Instead Croydon schools have been working with the Local Authorities Anti- Bullying Co-ordinator to reduce bullying and conflict in schools. To do this the Local Authority in partnership with schools has developed a range an innovative projects to help address the needs of individual schools and pupils collectively in the borough.

Social Norms Campaign:

The Social Norms Campaign has been developed in conjunction with Professor Perkins in New York, USA. The project hypothesis is that pupils misperceive the both the attitude and behaviour of other pupils, that pupils tend to over-estimate bad behaviour and under-estimate pro-social (positive) behaviour. This misperception makes more acceptable for bullying and other anti-social forms of behaviour to become perceived as the norm. By conducting an on-line survey of 2286 pupils from 12 schools (four secondary 187

and eight primary schools) the hypothesis was confirmed that pupils misperceive both the behaviour and attitudes of their friends and peers. To reduce the misperception gap the 12 schools and the Local Authority will develop campaigns to inform the school communities of the actual norms identified in the research. The campaigns will use a variety of marketing techniques to help promote positive messages of children and young people.

Research evidence of Local Authority Data is available upon request from the Education Committee.

Restorative Approaches to conflict:

Croydon DCYPL, has also been running staff training to improve staff responses to bullying and conflict situations in schools. This has been repeatedly identified in the Tell Us 4 Survey question where 21% of respondent said their school does not deal with bullying well. The premise has been that bad behaviour in some cases is a response to conflict within the school community and therefore rewards and sanctions are inadequate solutions as they do not help participants to resolve conflict.

At present over 100 staff in Croydon schools and partnership agencies including the Police and Anti-Social Behaviour Teams. The restorative approach has been developed from the Youth Justice Board’s Restorative Justice in Schools Report in 2005 which showed:

• That of 625 restorative meeting 92% ended in agreement, Croydon results mirror this. • 98% of pupils are satisfied with the process, again pupils in Croydon report feeling heard and being allowed to participate in the meeting. • 93% of pupils feel the process was fair and justice has been done, the use of restorative approaches also address the snitch, or tell-tale factor which can lead re-victimisation by either the perpetrator or peer supporters.

Additional benefits seen in Croydon are greater confidence in staff to deal with a range a behaviours’ that have been the catalyst for conflict including cyberbullying, social isolation and staff pupil conflict. Importantly, how staff role- model conflict resolution strategies in the playground and during meetings is an important factor to supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour. Often poor staff morale is central to pupil behaviour and staff being able to express concerns and values is encouraged during training to address real world issues and how to support pupils to develop pro-social behaviour.

With all projects and services CDCYPL offers we recognise that schools facing challenging behaviour may revert to a bunker mentality, where no one deals the problems we face. To counter-act this school staff at all levels are invited to participate in training and network event to share ideas and strategies to promote positive behaviour and good practice.

188

2. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff;

There needs to be a distinction between challenging behaviour because of characteristics of the individual and challenging situations which may be caused by situational forces and poor system design.

Challenging behaviour because of individual needs often means greater understanding and education such as autistic pupils, some early research in a primary schools showed that pupils defined disability as being in a wheelchair and they had no recognition of able bodied pupils with mental disabilities. Likewise, staff that are not trained to be aware of mental disabilities in particular tend to see bad behaviour as a characteristic of the individual rather than part of the metal condition. The DCSF guidance in the safe to learn suite on SEND and homophobic bullying highlighted the high levels of victimisation these groups faced.

Where conflict is the cause of challenging behaviour it is important to recognise situational forces, such as staff apathy to behaviour, no overarching school identify and weak leadership from the SLT can make both pupils and staff can feel unsafe. Situational forces are often the cause of conflict escalations, which draws in peers or parents. Often staff in school fail to recognise situational forces because of the subtleties that are seen as part of the school culture and climate of the organisation.

At present there is very little evidence of how conflict and bullying behaviour effects attendance and achievement for victimised pupils who minimise their time at school. Failure to address conflict, by creating an adequate resolution can take up more staff time as the on-going behaviours result in higher sanction thresholds being enforced taking up more teaching time and resources.

At a whole school level failure to address conflict and challenging behaviour may affect how parents respond to school staff creating further tension if the matter is not addressed. Bullying evidence suggests that it is not the high impact challenging behaviour that has the greatest impact on schools but the low level high frequency challenging behaviour that impacts most on the morale of the entire school community. However, low level high frequency behaviour will always be relative to the community a school, PRU academy serve.

3. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions;

The Local Authority recognises that schools will always have the option to use exclusion (fixed and permanent) as a means of addressing challenging behaviour. However, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative evidence in Croydon and nationally shows that where schools use emotional literate 189

methods such as restorative approaches this may reduce the length of fixed- term exclusion as well prevent permanent exclusions by resolving the situation. In addition, the increase in staff confidence to handle a greater range on conflict and bullying situations means that referral to the Head Teacher for fixed or permanent exclusion is reduced.

4. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour;

Schools in Croydon in partnership with the Local Authority have developed a number of parent sessions and evening events to support parents tackle challenging behaviour. Importantly, parents own skills in tackling challenging behaviour need to be build up to create greater continuity between school and home for children and young people. A classic example of parents’ advice to children, if someone hits you hit them back, although this may contradict the school stance. Until parents are given viable alternatives this may seem the most common sense approach to dealing with bullying and conflict.

The use of parent governors is crucial to informing the parent body of government up-dates and latest research to help promote pro-social behaviour, creating networks and forums is essential to helping maintain their knowledge base.

5. How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline;

Specific guidance regarding the latest evidence to support the wide range of approaches and the legality from the national government to support staff and pupils when dealing with challenging behaviour would help guide schools on the appropriateness of their behaviour and discipline policies.

The Role of the Special Education Needs Co-ordinator to specifically be consulted on when a school is reviewing its policies would help elevate the needs of this particularly group of pupils. When the Safe to Learn SEND guidance was released the Croydon Anti-Bullying Co-ordinator meet with both the primary and secondary SENCO networks to inform them of the guidance but also insist that they review the school’s Anti-Bullying policy to ensure that SEN pupils are clearly mentioned as these pupils are the highest risk group to all forms of bullying.

6. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour;

The efficacy of alternate provision, particularly the voluntary and private sector will need greater regulation to insure that pupils with challenging behaviour are being supported and that staff have the pre-requisite skills to improve and not just contain the behaviour of pupils. Croydon PRUs have been developing the use of restorative approaches to help staff maintain positive relationships and role model negotiation and conflict resolution skills in both primary and secondary provision. 190

However, present OFSTED inspections tend to treat alternate provision as on par with mainstream educational providers, whereas a new inspection model which looks at social and emotional skill development would help to focus PRUs on prevention and early re-integration.

7. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools;

At present there is a lack of evidence regarding pupils victimised in bullying situations and their attendance at school. Most behaviour programmes tend to focus on the attendance of perpetrators with aggressive challenging behaviour, therefore pupils who are depressed or withdraw from school because of conflict; bullying and facing low level high frequency tend to be over looked. This is particularly the case pupils refuse to attend school because of bullying. At this point there is a clash between the attendance issue of getting the pupil back into school and the behaviour issue of withdrawing from the school because of feelings unsafe. Parents often complain that both schools and Local Authorities do not understand this predicament.

The power to increase powers ability to search pupils will need to have pre-requisite safeguards in terms of pupil safety, such as appropriate search areas on the body, but also where schools are working with the police such as Safer Schools Officers or Safer Neighbourhood Teams behaviour or discipline policies should explicit refer to these professionals in the first instance. In addition, schools should provide data on reason for search and demographics of student searches to insure that bias and disproportionality do mean schools institutionally discriminate against pupils. Also, schools should have a mitigating circumstance clause in their school behaviour policy when using search powers, as pupils but specifically young pupils and girls can be intimidated into carrying contraband into schools for fear of reprisal if they say no, even at the cost of the contraband items carrying an exclusion tariff.

The removal of the written notice of detentions may have the unintended consequence of breaching a schools over-riding duty to keep pupils safe, particularly in the following situations: (1) where no parent is home to let the pupil in, (2) the pupil has to collect other siblings from schools, (3) Pupils using the detention as a means of staying out later to parents, (4) School assessment of pupil journey particularly when walking long distances or taking public transport.

Information regarding extension of teachers’ disciplinary powers was not available at time of writing this response.

September 2010 191

Memorandum submitted by Department for Education

Introduction

1. For many teachers, dealing with poor behaviour will be a significant challenge in their career. For many pupils, their education will be impeded because teaching is disrupted by the behaviour of others. For some pupils, their own behaviour will lead to repeated fixed period or permanent exclusions and will seriously hinder their chances of becoming successful individuals contributing to society.

2. The Coalition Government wants to give teachers the confidence to exercise authority to promote and ensure good behaviour in the classroom. We recognise that heads and teachers want to improve behaviour and teach in a calm, orderly environment but are too often constrained by regulations which inhibit them from maintaining order. That is why our first announcement on behaviour on 7 July focussed on clarifying and strengthening teachers’ powers to maintain order and instil discipline.

3. We have more to do on this, including measures to tackle bullying, head teachers’ powers to exclude disruptive pupils, how teachers are trained in behaviour management and the reform of alternative provision for excluded pupils. We will set out our plans in greater detail in a Schools White Paper to be published later this year and legislate where necessary in the next Education Bill. We therefore welcome the Select Committee Inquiry and hope that its deliberations and recommendations can inform the Government’s policy.

Policy Context

4. We believe that the two essential prerequisites for successful educational attainment are effective teaching of literacy and high standards of behaviour. A higher proportion of children from deprived backgrounds have poorer literacy skills from an early age than those of their peers, and this deficit goes on to affect their later educational outcomes1. A higher proportion of children from poor backgrounds also have greater problems with their behaviour. One study2 found that a child of parents in the lowest socio economic groups is around eight percentage points more likely to have behavioural problems than a child with parents in the highest group. Such children are also more likely to attend a school with behaviour problems. For example, data shows that pupils receiving free school meals (FSM) are more likely than other pupils to have been excluded for a fixed-period or permanently from school and the rate of fixed period exclusions is related to

1 In 2009 63.3% of pupils receiving free school meals (FSM) achieved a level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 English compared to 83.0% of pupils not receiving FSM. 2 Propper, C and Rigg, J (2007). Socio-Economic Status and Child Behaviour: Evidence from a contemporary UK cohort. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) paper 125, LSE. 192

the level of deprivation of the school3. Our Pupil Premium will direct additional funds to schools to support pupils from poorer backgrounds in ways that schools judge to be best, giving them flexibility to help those pupils who most need it.

5. Tackling absenteeism in schools is also a crucial part of the Government’s commitment to increasing social mobility and to ensuring every child can meet their potential. There is a demonstrable link between attendance and attainment with persistently absent pupils being around 6½ times less likely to achieve 5 A*-C grades at GCSE than those who attend school regularly4.

6. The recent fall in overall absence and persistent absence rates are welcome, but the overall level of absenteeism in schools is still too high. We need to do more to tackle the underlying factors that result in thousands of children being absent from school each day. Schools need to continue to be strict about authorising absence only when it is necessary, but need also to tackle unauthorised absence - which is still rising in primary schools.

7. Pupils identified as having special educational needs (with or without a statement) are more than 8 times more likely to be permanently excluded than those pupils with no special educational needs (SEN). In 2008/09, 24 in every 10,000 pupils with statements of SEN and 30 in every 10,000 pupils with SEN without statements were permanently excluded from school. This compares with 3 in every 10,000 pupils with no SEN. Pupils with SEN are also more likely to receive a fixed period exclusion. In 2008/09, 810 in every 10,000 pupils with statements of SEN and 700 in every 10,000 pupils with SEN without statements received one or more fixed period exclusions. This compares with 140 in every 10,000 pupils with no SEN5. Pupils with SEN have consistently been more likely to be excluded from school than their peers; we hope that the Committee’s inquiry will focus on the reasons why this is the case.

8. The recent Ofsted review of SEN and disability6 highlighted that schools classify a wide range of pupils as having SEN, from those whose needs could be met through good quality teaching to those with complex and severe needs requiring significant additional support. Correct identification and appropriate provision for pupils with SEN is a priority for this Government and the Green Paper on SEN, recently announced by the Minister of State for Children, will look at this area in detail. The Government wants to look at how we can improve the services these vulnerable children, including those with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD), and their families, receive. The system needs to be more transparent for parents with more

3 National Statistics: DCSF: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2006/07 – Amended, DCSF 2008 4 DfE unpublished internal analysis based on 2009 KS4 attainment data and pupil level absence data from the School Census 5 National Statistics: DfE: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2008/09, DfE 2010 6 A statement is not enough – Ofsted review of special educational needs and disability, Ofsted 2010 193

choice and involvement in the decision-making process.

Behaviour in schools today

9. It is true that many schools have very good behaviour and that most children will behave well if they are in a school where there is a positive ethos and a strong behaviour policy that is communicated to staff, parents and pupils and implemented consistently at all levels. However a closer analysis shows that there remain substantial problems in too many schools. A significant minority of pupils are causing disruption which impedes teachers’ ability to teach and other pupils’ opportunities to learn. As at December 2009, while 78.6% of state-funded secondary schools were judged as “Good” or “Outstanding” for standards of behaviour at their most recent Ofsted inspection, there were still 20.2% that were judged to be only “Satisfactory” and 1.1% judged to be “Inadequate”7. This equates to 677 secondary schools (21.3%) where behaviour was only satisfactory or inadequate.

10. In 2008/098 there were:

• an estimated 6,550 permanent exclusions from primary, secondary and special schools9. This represents 0.09% of the number of pupils in schools (9 pupils in every 10,000);

• 307,840 fixed period exclusions from state funded secondary schools. There were 39,510 fixed period exclusions from primary schools and 15,930 fixed period exclusions from special schools;

• 17,930 pupil exclusions for violence against an adult in primary, secondary and special schools, equating to approximately 11% of permanent exclusions and 5% of fixed period exclusions; and

• a further 79,060 exclusions for threatening behaviour or verbal abuse against an adult (representing 11% of permanent exclusions and 22% of fixed period exclusions).

11. In 2008/9, the average number of fixed period exclusions per enrolment was 1.9 exclusions. Of the 194,700 pupil enrolments with a fixed period exclusion, 119,420 pupils were excluded once (61 per cent), 36,750 pupils were excluded twice (19 per cent) and 38,540 pupils were excluded three or more times (20 per cent).

12. The most common reason for exclusion was persistent disruptive behaviour (30% of all permanent and 23% of fixed period exclusions).

7 Statistical Release NI86: Secondary Schools judged as having Good or Outstanding Standards of Behaviour at December 2009, DCSF 2010 8 National Statistics: DfE: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools in England 2008/09, DfE 2010 9 From a pupil population of over 7.4 million 194

13. The latest TellUS survey shows that 28.8% of children say they have been bullied in the last year and almost half of children have experienced bullying at some point whilst at school10.

14. There is evidence to suggest that different groups experience bullying more than others. There is anecdotal evidence from pupils and teachers to suggest that homophobic bullying continues to be a problem in schools. Due to the nature of homophobic bullying accurate data on its prevalence in schools is limited. However a 2007 survey of 1,145 pupils who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual conducted by Stonewall, reported that 65% of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying.11 A 2003 study, which compared survey responses from 1,200 lesbian, gay and bisexual people with those from 1,200 heterosexual people, indicated that 51% of homosexual men experienced bullying at school compared to 47% of heterosexual men and 30% of homosexual women experienced bullying at school compared to 20% of heterosexual women.12

15. The Longitudinal Survey of Young People in England (LSYPE)13 showed that young people with a disability were more likely than those without a disability to be called names, to be subject to social exclusion, to have their money and possessions taken, to be threatened with violence and to be victims of actual violence.

16. There is violence and assault in our schools. NASUWT have estimated that there is one assault (verbal or physical) every seven minutes14. A recent poll by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) found that 38.6% of respondents had dealt with physical aggression that academic year15. Most reported incidents (87%) involved violence towards another pupil, more than a quarter involved violence against the respondent, with 44% of incidents involving another teacher or a member of support staff (more than one answer could be given).

17. There is a growing trend to bully and harass teachers by making false allegations against them. A 2009 survey16 of 1,155 ATL members found that a quarter of school staff have had a false allegation made against them by a pupil, and one in six have had an allegation made by a member of a pupil's family. In addition, the same survey reported that 50% of school staff reported that they or a colleague have had a false allegation made against them in their current school or college by a pupil or a member of a pupil's family. In half the cases the allegation was immediately dismissed by the school. The police were notified in only 16% of instances, and took no further action in 55

10 The TellUS figures cover bullying in and out of schools, DCSF 2010 11 Stonewall (2007) The experiences of young gay people in Britain's schools 12 King and McKeown (2003) Mental health and social wellbeing of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in England and Wales 13 Green, R., Collingwood, A & Ross, A (2010) Characteristics of Bullying Victims in Schools 14 NASUWT, 2010 15 ATL, 2010 16 ATL 2009 195

of the 67 cases they investigated.

18. Pupil behaviour has a significant impact on the recruitment and retention of teachers. Issues of workload and poor pupil behaviour are important factors in dissuading undergraduates from entering the teaching profession and influencing serving teachers to leave17. A 2008 poll of undergraduates found that feeling unsafe in the classroom was the greatest deterrent18 to entering the teaching profession19. For teachers, workload is the highest demotivating factor (56%), followed by initiative overload (39%), a ‘target driven culture’ (35%) and, pupil behaviour (31%)20. Another study21 found that 68% of 1,400 teachers agreed that negative behaviour is driving teachers out of the profession, with secondary teachers more likely to agree with this statement than primary teachers. Half of the sample (51%) felt that teachers with less experience were more likely to be driven out of the profession by negative behaviour, while 19% disagreed with this.

19. Not only can pupil indiscipline be demotivating for teaching staff, it can also be disruptive to other pupils. The 2009 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) showed that of 23 countries researched, an estimated 30% of teaching time is lost due to poor pupil behaviour22.

20. In a one-week period in March 2009, NASUWT undertook a survey of teachers and headteachers working in primary and secondary schools, and over 10,000 responses to the survey were received.23 The survey confirmed the OECD finding that the impact of lost teaching and learning time as a result of pupil indiscipline was acute. In primary schools, an average of 30 minutes of available teaching time was lost per teacher per day, whilst in secondary schools, the figure for lost teaching time increased to 50 minutes per teacher per day.

21. In international surveys of 15-year old students’ beliefs and expectations by Elliott et al24, the belief that classmates had poorer behaviour and disrupted lessons was linked to lower levels of perceived work rates for pupils in both the UK and the US (Sunderland and Kentucky) compared with a Russian sample in which behaviour was perceived to be better. A similar pattern was shown in a later survey of 9 and 10 year-old pupils, although these students tended to be more positive in their ratings of their classmates’

17 Ashby et al 2008: Beginner teachers' experiences of initial teacher preparation, induction and early professional development: a review of the literature. DCSF 18 18% with salary being the next most common factor at 16.8% 19 YouGov Plc (2008) for Policy Exchange. Cited in Freedman, S; Lipson, B; & Hargreaves, D (2008): More Good Teachers 20 MORI (2003): One in Three Teachers to Leave Within Five Years. 21 NFER (2008): Teacher Voice Omnibus June 2008 Survey: Pupil Behaviour. DCSF 22 OECD (2009) Creating Effective Learning and Teaching Environments: First Results from TALIS 23 NASUWT, 2010 24 Elliott, J; Hufton, N; Hildreth, A (1999). Factors Influencing Educational Motivation: a study of attitudes, expectations and behaviour of children in Sunderland, Kentucky and St Petersburg. 196

behaviour25.

22. Some poorly behaved pupils may face a bleak future. Studies have found26 that exclusion is associated with: offending behaviour including offences classed as serious (drug use; possession of weapons); being NEET; academic underachievement; limited ambition; homelessness; and mental ill health.

23. Youth Cohort Study data for 2007 was used to compare, on various measures, those who had been excluded at some point to those who had never been excluded. This found that young people who had been excluded (for a fixed-term or permanently) from school in Years 10 or 11 were much less likely to be in full-time education at age 19 (20 per cent compared to 45 per cent of non-excludees) and much more likely to be out of work at age 19 (13 per cent compared to 5 per cent). Similar results for the negative outcomes for excluded pupils were also shown in the earlier Youth Cohort Studies.

24. Analysis of all pupils permanently excluded in Year 9 in the 2004-5 academic year data showed that pupils who entered secondary school with very low literacy skills (below National Curriculum Level 3 in English) had an exclusion rate five times that of pupils entering Key Stage 3 at Level 4 or above (0.5% of those with severe literacy difficulties were excluded, compared to 0.1% of those with at least average literacy levels).27.

25. The DfES 2004 youth cohort study found that only 20% of pupils with a fixed term or permanent exclusion from school in Years 10 and 11 achieved 5 or more GCSE A*-Cs or equivalent, compared to 58% of non-excludees.

How well schools manage behaviour

26. Good teaching underpins good behaviour. Pupils are more likely to behave well when they are interested and engaged. Analysis of the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England indicated that of the cohort of 14-16 year-olds, those classified as ‘disengaged’ were far more likely to report misbehaving than other young people. Forty per cent of ‘disengaged’ pupils reported misbehaving in half or more of their classes compared with just 7 per

25 Elliott, JG, Hufton, N, Illushin, L & Lauchlan, F (2001). Motivation in the Junior Years: international perspectives on children’s attitudes, expectations and behaviour and their relationship to educational achievement. 26 Youth Justice Board (2004): Mori Youth Survey 2004; Goulden et al (2001) At the margins: drug use by vulnerable young people in the 1998/99 Youth Lifestyles Survey; DCSF (2005) Youth Cohort Study: Activities and Experiences of 17 Year Olds: England and Wales 2005; DCSF (2004) Youth Cohort Study: Activities and Experiences of 17 Year Olds: England and Wales 2004; Randal et al (2009): Prevention is better than cure; Thomas et al (2008) Targeted Youth Support: Rapid Evidence Assessment of Effective Early Interventions for Youth at Risk of Future Poor Outcomes; Daniels et al (2003): Study of young people permanently excluded from school 27 DfES (2006) KPMG Foundation (2006) The long-term costs of literacy difficulties. 197

28.

27. Smith et al. (2005)29 conducted a systematic review of research on what pupils aged 11-16 believed impacted on their motivation to learn in the classroom. The reviewers concluded that what teachers do can impact both positively and negatively on pupil motivation. There appeared to be a connection between pupil enjoyment of a task and the degree to which it engaged them cognitively. Across the studies in the review, it was found that engagement in learning was more likely if:

• the lessons were perceived as 'fun';

• the lessons were varied and participative;

• teachers used collaborative approaches; and

• pupils perceived activities to be useful and authentic.

28. Qualitative research with primary school pupils showed that pupils disengage with their education when they feel bored with the general curriculum or specific educational tasks – something not mentioned by parents or teachers in their equivalent interviews. The pupils also described their behaviour when disengaged; this included disruptive behaviours such as play fights and throwing objects in the classroom 30.

29. Against this backdrop, it is nevertheless clear, that most young people are well behaved most of the time and that most teachers and head teachers employ effective behaviour management strategies in their classrooms and schools:

• the vast majority of teachers (93%) who responded to the NASUWT survey31 said that their schools had a whole-school behaviour policy;

however

• the same survey found that teachers felt that the behaviour policy was inconsistently applied by a range of staff, including the most senior;

• 80% of respondents to the Teacher Voice survey32 saw themselves as well equipped to manage pupil behaviour;

but

28 Ross, A (2009) Disengagement from Education among 14-16 year olds 29 Smith, C., Dakers, J., Dow, W., Head, G., Sutherland, M. and Irwin, R. (2005) A systematic review of what pupils, aged 11–16, believe impacts on their motivation to learn in the classroom. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. 30 Ravet, J (2007) Making sense of disengagement in the primary classroom: a study of pupil, teacher and parent perceptions. 31 2010 32 NFER 2008 198

• were less sure about whether the appropriate training and support was available to help them to deal with behaviour management issues.

30. We expect that schools’ performance management arrangements will identify any difficulties individual teachers have in managing behaviour and that their CPD arrangements will address these.

31. We also believe that there is a minority of pupils who are persistently poorly behaved and need targeted support. However, any child may misbehave if their behaviour is not managed properly at school or at home and we expect parents to play their part in supporting the authority of schools and teachers.

Our approach

32. The Elton Report (1989) pointed to the growing body of evidence indicating that, while other factors such as a pupil’s home background affect behaviour, school-based influences are also very important.

33. The most effective schools are those that have created a positive atmosphere based on a sense of community and shared values. There is now a well established professional and academic consensus on what schools can and should do to ensure good behaviour from their pupils. These include: clarity and consistency of approach (including towards rewards and sanctions) by all staff, led by a strong leadership team; good support and development for staff; and a targeted and differentiated approach towards some pupils and their parents.

34. Despite this consensus, poor behaviour remains a problem in some schools. We expect good behaviour from every child and in every school. Our guiding principles are:

• teachers should be trusted to find the approaches that work in their schools;

• government should free teachers by stripping away unnecessary regulation and prescription from the centre but hold schools to account for outcomes through a sharper inspection framework;

• teachers must be able to exercise authority in a manner that is clearly understood by pupils and their parents;

• government will give heads and teachers the powers they need;

• head teachers should back teachers’ authority and support them in dealing with difficult pupils, or when facing allegations;

• pupils and their parents must take responsibility for attendance and behaviour and parents must support teachers when they insist on good 199

discipline; and

• the most challenging children need extra support.

What we will do to support teachers

35. Informed by our research33 on barriers to teachers using their powers to ensure good behaviour, we will work with teachers to set out a framework of rights and responsibilities, making clear that Government supports schools in ensuring good behaviour, and that we expect school leaders to support teachers. The framework will support heads and teachers in promoting positive behaviour and provide clarity around the use of powers of discipline, whether dealing with violent incidents or disruptive pupils.

36. We will:

• restore schools’ authority by giving heads and teachers the powers and confidence to exclude students when poor behaviour warrants it;

• issue shorter clearer guidance on disciplinary powers, including on the use of force, to strengthen teachers’ confidence to deal with violent incidents;

• extend teachers’ powers to search for and confiscate items;

• abolish 24 hour notice for detentions, allowing teachers to tackle poor behaviour immediately;

• protect teachers from malicious allegations which will strengthen their authority in the classroom;

• ensure that teachers and heads understand their powers and are therefore able to use them; and

• ensure that parents and pupils understand the powers that schools and teachers have to maintain good order and deal with poor behaviour.

37. We will remove the disincentives to exclude, so that schools can make exclusion decisions based only on the pupil’s behaviour and improve the quality of alternative provision by, amongst other measures, encouraging third sector and other providers with proven success in helping children and young people overcome behavioural and other problems, to expand provision.

38. Ofsted inspection of behaviour and attendance will underline the importance of behaviour management and incentivise schools to focus on good behaviour as part of their overall approach to school improvement.

39. We are committed to making bullying unacceptable in all

33 Unpublished at the time of this submission 200

circumstances. No young person should go to school dreading the treatment they will receive. We will raise schools’ awareness of the importance of tackling homophobic bullying and other forms of prejudice based bullying. To do this we will:

• review the Department’s guidance to ensure that schools are given the right message about tackling bullying effectively;

• work with Ofsted to ensure that tackling poor behaviour and bullying is given more prominence in planned changes to school inspection; and

• empower schools so that they can take a zero-tolerance approach to preventing and tackling bullying.

40. We will continue to collect and monitor data on overall absence, unauthorised absence and persistent absence rates. The emphasis, however, will be on persistent absence as the best indicator of problem absence.

41. We accept that there remains more to do and in some areas we are still considering how best to move forward. We look forward to a dialogue with the Committee and with other interested parties.

September 2010 201

Memorandum submitted by British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) would like to submit the following response to the Education Committee’s Inquiry into Discipline and Behaviour in Schools.

1. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) is the leading body for counselling and psychotherapy in the UK with 34,000 members, who work across the public, private and voluntary sectors.

BACP has a strong public commitment to high practice standards and public protection. All BACP members are bound by the Ethical Framework for Good Practice for Counselling and Psychotherapy and within this, the Professional Conduct Procedure. These set out the basis of good practice for BACP therapists and their clients.

BACP has worked with the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) to develop a toolkit to support the development of school counselling services in Wales, as part of this project we also worked with a Welsh secondary school to develop the Masks and Mirrors short film and recently a follow up production.

The Welsh Assembly Government were awarded the BACP Innovation in Counselling and Psychotherapy award 2009 for their National School-based Counselling Strategy.

BACP has recently been awarded a contract to provide research into WAG’s schools based counselling strategy which will look into the impact on young people’s mental health, satisfaction rates (clients and schools), perceptions, where added value could be employed, relationships between counselling services and wider support groups and cost effectiveness. The research will also include an evaluation of the primary school pilots. This research begins in September 2010 to be completed in August 2011.

2. Summary

Evidence shows that counselling in schools can significantly improve young people’s challenging behaviour, support them with their emotional difficulties and help them manage their anger.

3. Background information on schools counselling

Nearly ten per cent of 5-16 year olds have a mental disorder and in a recent study of school counselling across the UK, which has assessed the experiences of more than 10,000 clients, school counselling can be associated with significant positive change in mental well being for young people.

School-based counselling can help young people deal with a range of problems including challenging behaviour as well as bereavement, eating disorders, bullying and relationships amongst other things. School-based counselling services that have been implemented successfully in Wales have helped thousands of children and young people become more confident in school and early results indicate improved attendance. 202

Only England doesn’t have a policy commitment to school based counselling. The Governments of Wales and Northern Ireland have in place national strategies for school counselling and their implementation, and provide ring fenced funding for the provision of these services in every secondary school in their countries, whilst Scotland has a commitment to provide access to school services by 2015.

4. School counselling and dealing with discipline and behaviour in schools.

Many young people in secondary school seek support from, and are referred to school counselling because of behaviour difficulties, and particularly managing their anger

These requests for counselling support are always at the wish of the young people concerned – they are not ‘sent’ to counselling, rather they go wishing to change the way they are behaving

Counselling is associated with significantly high levels of improvement in these young people, and is associated with a significant reduction in their emotional difficulties (which is usually the cause of their behavioural difficulties)

Young people consistently give high ratings of levels of satisfaction and helpfulness of school counselling as an effective intervention

Teachers too, consistently give high ratings to the usefulness of having professional counsellors in school

There is a trend for reduced absence following a period of school counselling - however more research is needed in this area

5. Recommendations

All children and young people should have access to professional, qualified counselling services in their school.

Children and young people should be able to request services for themselves as well as others requesting the services on their behalf.

For children and young people who prefer not to access services in school, and for those who are not in school, there should be alternative provision within community settings. Services need to be designed to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of the populations that they serve

September 2010 203

Memorandum submitted by TreeHouse

About TreeHouse TreeHouse is the national charity for autism education. We believe that education is key to transforming the lives of children and young people with autism, and the lives of their families.

TreeHouse runs a special school for children and young people with autism; provides information and training for parents and professionals; commissions research and campaigns for change.

Our vision is that children and young people with autism achieve their potential and live the life they choose.

About autism Autism is a lifelong neurological condition that affects 1 in 100 children in the UK (Office of National Statistics, 2005). Autism affects communication, social understanding and imagination.

Autism is a spectrum condition which means that it can vary from mild to severe. This means that many children with autism will attend mainstream educational provision, with and without a statement of special educational needs (SEN) and additional support. TreeHouse’s research shows that the average age of diagnosis is 6 years and 7 months which means that many children will be attending school without a clear identification of their needs and without appropriate support in place. It is now possible to begin diagnosis of a child with autism at 18 months and routine diagnosis and support is available to children and families in other countries at an early age.

1. Autism and behaviour

1.1 Autism is a disability that affects communication, social skills and imagination. If children with autism have difficulty understanding and making themselves understood, then a whole range of communication and behavioural difficulties can result, in what can be perceived as ‘challenging behaviour’.

1.2 Many children with autism face significant difficulties in school, principally due to a lack of awareness and understanding of the challenges they experience and the impact that these have on their behaviour. TreeHouse research has found that: • 43% of children with autism were excluded from school in a 12 month period1

1 Disobedience or disability? The exclusion of children with autism from education (TreeHouse, 2009) (attached as part of evidence) – Not published on the Committee’s website. 204

• Over 40% of children with autism are bullied at school2 • 51% of teachers have never had any autism training3

1.3 We know that challenging behaviour is often a symptom of a child’s special educational need being unidentified and unmet. We also know from our work at TreeHouse School that, given the right interventions, children with autism who have displayed very challenging behaviour in the past can be supported to do well in school and achieve their potential.

2. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

2.1 Effective interventions for children with autism focus on: • An approach centred on the needs of the child with input from parents and professionals as a team • Early diagnosis and intervention • Specialist, evidence-based multi-disciplinary support • A behavioural approach which identifies the root cause of behaviour and puts in place a structured programme of support to create positive behaviour.

2.2 We have heard from parents across the country that when children with autism are criticised or punished for their behaviour, many children do not fully understand why their behaviour is considered inappropriate and it is not made clear to them what behaviour is more appropriate and why.

2.3 For that reason, practices like an exclusion from class, where there is no concerted effort to explain and model positive behaviour, do not actually address the core difficulties associated with challenging behaviour. One of the most important principles of behaviour is reinforcement – the strengthening of a behaviour as a result of something that has followed that behaviour. So if a child is excluded from class after being disruptive due to finding it difficult to concentrate in a class, the behaviour is likely to be repeated in the future because being sent out of the class resulted in escape from the difficult task.

2.4 TreeHouse and others working in this specialist field already have evidence- based, effective methodologies that achieve positive behaviours and good outcomes for pupils who have experienced exclusion in less specialist settings. We believe it is vital that this expertise is shared to enable other settings to provide appropriate support for pupils with autism.

2 Batten A et al, 2006, Autism and Education 3 ICM for TreeHouse, sample of 250 teachers, February 2009. 205

3. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

3.1 It is important to consider that autism is a spectrum condition, affecting people to different extents, and so difficulties communicating and understanding affect children and young people with autism to varying extents. This results in different levels of challenging behaviour being displayed.

3.2 Difficulties often arise from a situation where a child with autism has not understood a teacher’s instructions, does not behave or carry out a task as expected, and then is told off for reasons they do not understand. An unacceptable reaction to not understanding why they are being told off can escalate and result in challenging behaviour, whether it was verbally expressing frustration at not being understood, or through rage or physical behaviour.

3.3 For example, if a child with autism is asked if they can pick up their school bag, they may well reply ‘yes’ rather than picking up their bag, as they will often interpret a question or remark in a very literal way as a result of their autism. If a teacher has little understanding of autism they might interpret this as a refusal to comply, and therefore begin a disciplinary route. This is a classic example of a teacher’s lack of understanding of autism leading to inappropriate use of punishment, which does not help the child to understand the situation, and therefore does not prevent the behaviour happening again.

3.4 One young person with autism elaborated: “If an instruction is given to a full group, I will not always understand that I am included in this”

3.5 Irving, another young person with autism, told us: "I used to get so frustrated at school when people didn't understand me, and when I didn't understand them. I didn't know how to control it and I'd just blow up. That caused loads of problems, getting into fights and things. But when I got the right support later on it really helped. My teachers and the other kids in the class understood me better so I got less frustrated. And I learnt ways to manage better too."

3.6 One parent told us: “I worry that so often the simplest measures aren't put into place in schools to help our children even just cope with school .... their behaviour can be their only option of communicating that they are not coping.

206

“With Annie, she was constantly told off for things she had no control over. She was made to stand up in front of the whole school in assembly once for fidgeting with some paper. But what they didn’t take the time to find out was that she took it into assembly knowing she couldn’t cope if she couldn’t fidget. The staff never sat her at the back or sides and she was devastated to be told off for this.

She was also told off for calling out, being rude, not following instructions - all the traits of her diagnosed difficulties and they knew she desperately wanted to be seen as a good kid...it was all very unfair.

You can’t expect someone to do something without giving them the tools to do it first. If a child with autism is struggling with behaviour issues, I would ask lots of questions about their environment, support, routine etc first before assuming it’s due to just being naughty. Of course they are more than capable of this too, but in my opinion, if they are showing this behaviour at school or it is school related then it is more likely a lack of understanding on the schools behalf and that is the problem that needs addressing.”

4. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions

4.1 The Department for Education statistics show that the most common reason for exclusion is persistent disruptive behaviour, accounting for some 29.6% of permanent exclusions and 23% of fixed period exclusions4. The same dataset confirms that 27% of children with SEN are excluded from school a year, which is 8 times the rate of children who do not have SEN5. TreeHouse research in 2009 found that 43% of children with autism had been excluded in 12 month period6 . 4.2 We also know that formally recorded exclusions are only part of the picture: 55% of parents told us that their children had been informally excluded from school7, which is when parents were asked to remove their child from school before the end of the school day without any formal procedure being followed. For the vast majority of parents whose children had been informally excluded, this was a regular occurrence.

4.3 We believe this high level of exclusions is a direct result of a lack of training and support available to teachers and schools to work with children with SEN.

4.4 One parent told us:

4 Department for Education, Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals In England, 2008/09 5 Ibid. 6 Disobedience or disability? The exclusion of children with autism from education (TreeHouse, 2009) 7 Ibid. 207

“Dan was suspended on two occasions for incidents that were quite clearly related to his autism. For example, tapping a pen on the table was classed as being deliberately disruptive even after I explained that he was using it as a coping mechanism and that it indicated that he was stressed. He is constantly punished for what they term "failure to comply" and being rude to the teachers (by correcting them when they make mistakes).

They put extreme pressure on him to comply with neurotypical expectations which of courses just stresses him out even more.

This is down to lack of understanding/awareness of autism and all that goes with it.”

4.5 Exclusions have a far-reaching impact, as it can mean that children are denied access to the education that is so vital to fulfilling potential. Exclusions can also lead to a child’s disability being stigmatised and the child becoming socially isolated. A child being excluded as a result of their disability is also in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act.

4.6 The practice of exclusions also has a significant impact on the lives of families. When we surveyed parents in 2008, 44% reported that their child’s exclusion regularly required them to leave work8, which had a detrimental effect on their employment. One family told us that they planned their careers around the expectation of their child being excluded, with only one parent able to study or work at a time so that the other parent would be available to pick the child up from school if the school did not feel they could support them that day.

4.7 Exclusions also can result in children being placed in more expensive specialist settings, when earlier effective interventions would produce a better outcome for the child at a lower cost.

4.8 The percentage of tribunal appeals where autism was the primary need is the single largest category of all SEN appeals, with increased appeal cases from 14.7% in 2002 to 28% in 2008 and 25% in 20099. Tribunals can be the only route for parents to secure educational provision for their child after they have been excluded from school. This results in unnecessary cost and stress to families, schools and local authorities.

4.9 In a recent TreeHouse survey of teachers, we found that 51% had never received autism training, and only 10% had received autism training in the past 12 months10. Training needs to equip teachers and other school staff

8 Ibid. 9 SENDIST Annual Report 2008/09. 10 ICM for TreeHouse, February 2009, telephone poll of 250 teachers. 208

with a solid understanding of how autism impacts on a child’s abilities and how they can adapt their approach to accommodate that child.

4.10 We cannot expect all teachers to be specialists in autism, but all teachers will teach a child with autism at some point, so it is important that teachers do have access to specialist support if they are having difficulty in responding to a child’s needs.

4.11 TreeHouse School educates children with complex autism, many of whom have been excluded from several schools and have been out of school for a length of time. Only one child at TreeHouse has been excluded, and we believe that the pro-active approach to behavioural and communication needs that we take is central to our success in supporting young people with complex autism to manage their own behaviour and better access learning.

5. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

5.1 TreeHouse believes that parents have a vital role to play in reinforcing and supporting an overall approach to behaviour, especially considering that children typically spend more time at home than at school. Consistency is important, particularly for children and young people with autism who can find it difficult to generalise experiences and learning. Key to this is ensuring that parents are seen as part of the team, that there is good communication between home and school and that issues in both settings are understood and responded to.

5.2 Every pupil at TreeHouse School has a home-school book, so that parents and school staff can easily inform each other about the child’s progress and behaviour and respond to any issues accordingly. Parents also receive training from the behaviour specialists at TreeHouse School in order to help manage the child’s behaviour at home and ensure a consistent approach is taken.

5.3 Our experience is that the vast majority of parents are keen to be involved in an overall approach to supporting their child’s education and managing their behaviour, but this relies on them having enough support. They need to know that their perspective is valued and their contribution forms part of a genuine partnership.

5.4 We believe it is important that parents are not ‘blamed’ for their children’s behaviour. The core difficulties associated with autism have a significant bearing on a child’s behaviour. While parents can contribute to an approach that helps the child manage their own behaviour, it is crucial to recognise that challenging behaviour results from the child’s disability, not from a style of 209

parenting. School staff and policy-makers must understand this crucial point if they are to help build constructive relationships with parents of children with autism and therefore reduce challenging behaviour in schools.

5.5 TreeHouse surveyed parents and carers of children with autism in 2010 and we found that 58% of parents and carers have been openly criticised by members of the public for their child’s behaviour11. These attitudes must be challenged if we are to make progress in supporting young people with autism and their families to be included in their communities, and in eliminating disability discrimination.

6. How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

6.1 There needs to be absolute clarity in the school’s behaviour and discipline policies that autism is a disability that affects communication, which in turn affects behaviour and that, in line with the Disability Discrimination Act, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of disability. The policies should emphasise that reasonable adjustments must be made where learners have a disability and set out examples of what kind of adjustments can help prevent the need for exclusion.

6.2 We believe that behaviour and discipline policies should emphasise that reasonable adjustments must focus on proactive steps to reduce challenging behaviour. This could involve seeking to understand and address root causes of challenging behaviour, adapting communication and approaches accordingly, and bringing in behavioural specialists as necessary.

6.3 To improve access to specialist expertise, it is important for schools to form links with local and regional specialist hubs, so that advice and support is available when it is needed and exclusions can be avoided.

6.4 We also believe that schools need to make a commitment in their policies to providing general information and training to all staff on SEN and to ensuring that at least one member of staff holds a post-graduate qualification in SEN.

7. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

7.1 We know that 68% of the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) population is identified as having SEN12.

11 TreeHouse survey of 104 UK parents and carers of children with autism, April 2010 12 Department for Children, Schools and Families, Special Educational Needs in England, January 2009 210

7.2 For alternative provision to meet children’s individual needs, staff working in these settings need quality autism training, including behavioural interventions. This will enable them to understand children’s needs and carry out interventions which are both effective in supporting the needs of children with autism, and relevant to effective behaviour management for all children.

7.3 There needs to be good communication between the alternative provision, the child’s main provision and the family in order to ensure that intelligence is shared, approaches are coordinated and there is a smooth, appropriate transition between settings. Furthermore, agreed timescales, clear objectives and regular progress reviews can ensure that alternative provision is clearly focused on improving behaviour and working towards reintegration.

7.4 For some children PRUs are the right intervention for their needs at a particular time. However, for others, a referral to a PRU is a result of a lack of identification of SEN and a lack of appropriate, specialist interventions in other settings. We believe this is a waste of an individual child’s potential and the resource could be better used in earlier effective intervention.

8.1 TreeHouse has serious concerns about the removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions, and removal of the requirement to record and inform parents about incidents when force has been used on their children.

8.2 Parents are vital partners in supporting an overall approach to helping children to manage their behaviour. Any partnership relies on good communication, and for behaviour to be understood and addressed, it is critical that both parents and professionals are aware of all factors that may influence their behaviour at home and at school. It therefore seems illogical to both emphasise parental responsibility at the same time as removing requirements to keep parents informed. It is also essential that parents are informed of their child’s movements and activities for safeguarding reasons.

8.3 As autism is a disability affecting communication, many children and young people will not be able to inform their parents if force has been used on them. Communication difficulties may also mean that children with autism do not know what ‘appropriate force’ is, or why they are being disciplined. It is therefore vital that schools keep parents informed about incidences when force has been used to ensure that these practices are transparent and accountable.

211

9. Recommendations

9.1 TreeHouse emphasises the following priority recommendations: • Early identification of SEN and timely interventions to meet children’s needs and prevent potential behavioural difficulties later in life • Training in SEN for all school staff and each school to have a staff member with a post-graduate qualification in SEN • Access for schools to specialist multi-disciplinary support in their local area • Parents and professionals to work collaboratively to support a child’s progress and positive behaviour through the home-school agreement, joint reviews and good communication around any behavioural issues

September 2010

212

Memorandum submitted by Telford & Wrekin and Shropshire Educational Psychology Service

1. Executive summary 1.1 We are advising that issues of behaviour and discipline in schools should be viewed, first and foremost, as an aspect of effective schooling. Strategies to address problems of behaviour and discipline should be set in the context of school improvement, including effective teaching and learning and school leadership.

1.2 We are recommending that persistent difficulties in a minority of pupils should be viewed in the context of family and community. Strategies to address persistent difficulties should be supportive of families rather than punitive in nature. Multiagency approaches will offer the best chance of bringing about long term changes.

1.3 We are advising that specialist provision is developed at a locality level, within the family of local authority schools. This will allow the best opportunity for specialist schools and services to reach out and develop the capacity of mainstream settings.

2. Brief introduction 2.1 This evidence has been submitted by the Principal Educational Psychologist on behalf of Shropshire Council.

2.2 This evidence represents the experience of senior managers and headteachers of specialist support schools and services in Shropshire, including the headteacher of an 11- 16 EBD school; the headteacher of the Tuition, Medical and Behaviour Support Service (PRU); the Head of Behaviour Support and Inclusion; the Principal Education Welfare Officer; the School Improvement Adviser (Behaviour and Attendance); the Secondary School Improvement Consultant (Behaviour & Attendance); and Educational Psychologists.

3. Factual information 3.1 We consider that the starting point for supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools is high quality teaching and learning, supported by excellent school leadership. This has been the consistent recommendation of successive inquiries into behaviour and discipline in schools and this was the recommendation of Sir Alan Steer in his recent report ‘Learning Behaviour; Lessons Learned’ (April 2009).

3.2 Teachers need support in managing pupils’ behaviour. Approaches developed through the SEAL initiative (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) and through the Behaviour and Attendance strand of the National Strategies. Other National Strategy initiatives, such as the Personal Learning and Thinking Skills, have provided both challenge and support to schools as they have worked to develop the skills needed for positive behaviour in pupils.

3.3 Whole school approaches, such as SEAL, not only address behaviour but also seek to develop the underpinning skills, such as problem solving and empathy which impact on behaviour.

3.4 Teachers report that they welcome and benefit from opportunities to share good practice and to learn from each other. Through ‘Behaviour and Attendance’ networks, supported by specialists within local authorities, teachers have had rapid access to information and advice about effective strategies, promoted through the work of the National Strategies. This has helped to build capacity within schools. 213

3.5 It is important that school systems work effectively together, in particular by ensuring good links between SEN and pastoral systems. In some instances, behavioral needs are treated quite separately from the assessment of learning needs and this can sometimes lead to misunderstandings about the underlying causes of challenging behaviours.

3.6 It is also important that schools communicate effectively with parents and, in particular, that they share good news with parents about positive aspects of behaviour.

3.7 The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff;

3.8 Where schools achieve high quality teaching and learning; effective links between school systems for pastoral and SEN support; effective partnerships with parents, and strong leadership, challenging behaviour becomes the exception, exhibited by a minority of pupils.

3.9 The small number of pupils exhibiting challenging behaviour in these circumstances are most likely to have complex needs, often linked to the effects of poverty and social deprivation - “a child is not trying to be a problem, but to solve one”.

3.10 Some schools report persist problems with behaviours such as pupils ‘acting out’, swearing/being non compliant/being ‘threatening’/bullying others/walking out of lessons/disrupting lessons by calling out ‘inappropriate’ comments, as well as pupils who ‘act in’ such as withdrawing/not engaging/seemingly being anxious about contributing and at the more extreme end self-harming/non-attendance.

3.11 The impact on staff can be demoralizing and stressful. However, our experience has shown that some schools are consistent in developing an ethos of respect; effective teaching and learning polices; a culture of staff working together and supporting each other; effective behaviour policies; effective communication and engagement with parents,. In such schools, persistent challenging behaviour is significantly reduced and can be effectively managed for most pupils.

3.12 We do have concerns that the instances of challenging behaviour amongst younger children appears to have increased in recent years. We consider that this may relate to documented issues of concern in society such as young parents, isolated in their communities; the overdependence on television in managing the demands of young children, with an impact on the development of communication and social skills; alcohol and drug dependency amongst parents which is seen in an apparent increase in conditions such as foetal alcohol syndrome.

3.13 We believe that in some examples, teachers are not well enough prepared to meet the needs of children with a range of developmental needs, in part because the teacher training curriculum focuses largely on curriculum delivery. We believe that teachers could be better prepared if the teacher training curriculum included aspects of children development and psychology, relevant to the developmental age and stage of the age group taught. 214

3.14 We also believe that it is difficult for teachers to manage diverse needs in large classes. There is research evidence of better outcomes where class sizes are maintained at a level of below 30 in a class.

3.15 Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions;

3.16 Shropshire Council currently supports a number of approaches which, in combination, aim to offer a proactive and preventative approach to managing challenging behaviour.

3.17 The Local Authority has actively supported schools to develop Learning Support Units and is committed to training Learning Mentors. Primary and Secondary schools have engaged with these initiatives and recognize the impact of them

3.18 The Local Authority has an Inclusion Officer who offers advice and support to schools facing the need to exclude pupils. The Local Authority also has an Education Inclusion Caseworker who works directly with excluded pupils with the aim of getting them back into school as soon as possible.

3.19 However, it is acknowledged that exclusion is a response to behaviours and doesn’t address behaviours. Exclusion is reactive, not proactive, and may function to provide respite for teachers or school, without addressing the child’s underlying needs.

3.20 Where support for school improvement is needed, we have found the approaches developed through the ‘Behaviour Challenge’ initiative effective in developing the capacity of schools. We consider that the Local Authority has played an important part in developing the capacity of schools to manage challenging behaviours.

3.21 In addition, the provision offered through our ‘education centres’ (PRUs) managed through the Tuition, Medical and Behaviour Support Service has been recognized as ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted. This service works with pupils at risk of exclusion and offers a comprehensive assessment together with developmental support for the child’s ‘home’ school. The child remains on the roll of the home school and is expected to return to the school. In most cases, the child makes a successful return to a mainstream setting, sometimes with additional support. In a small number of cases, the assessment and intervention indicates the need for more specialized provision.

3.22 Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour;

3.23 Parents will respond where there is an ethos of active engagement in promoting partnership with parents, together with targeted support for parents in need of extra help and support.

3.24 Some approaches that we have found to be successful include:

• Sure Start • Extended Schools • Parent support advisers 215

• Learning mentors, who often develop effective relationships with parents of children needing extra support • ‘Triple P’ and other evidence-based parenting approaches • Family Learning

3.25 How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline;

3.26 We believe that challenging behaviour is most helpfully considered as an aspect of learning, with strategies in place to ensure that the classroom and school context supports the effective learning of appropriate behaviours.

3.27 An important starting point is to ensure that learning opportunities are well- matched to a pupil’s stage of development and learning. It is important that there is recognition of the links between disaffection and ineffective learning opportunities.

3.28 We have found evidence-based assessment tools such as PASS (Pupil Attitudes to Self and School) as useful means of identifying problems at an early stage so that preventative strategies can be used.

3.29 The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour;

3.30 An effective local provision is our Tuition, Medical and Behaviour Support Service (Education Centres/PRU) which offers a holistic assessment of a child’s needs and off-site intervention for part of the week, combined with advice and support to school staff and parents in the context of the ‘home’ school. This enables the understanding of the child’s needs, and learning about ‘what works’ for an individual child, to be used in the mainstream school.

3.31 Maintaining provision locally means that the Local Authority can gather data about ineffective mainstream provision, and use targeted intervention to develop capacity within the mainstream.

3.32 External ‘specialist’ provision does not always offer value for money. It is difficult to quality assure, and does not enable to Local Authority to build the capacity of its local mainstream provision.

3.33 Links between attendance and behaviour in schools; 3.34 Non school attendance is always a symptom of a problem in a child’s life; such problems will manifest in behaviours that will impact on their attendance and challenge school staff.

3.35 Early identification and good assessment procedures include: • Ensuring school processes are sound; regularly reviewed, evaluated and challenged • Conducting whole school attendance audits to identify patterns/trends across the school and county • Regular review of registers of pupils (every 3 weeks) with less than 87% • Ensuring prompt follow up when irregular attendance is identified 216

• Allocating skilled staff, independent to schools, to work with families and schools to undertake good quality assessments to identify reasons and solutions • The effective use of parental responsibility measures to improve parent accountability • The effective deployment of staff across the county to target schools where absence is lowest

3.36 Such approaches will contribute to: • Identifying individual solutions to absence • Identifying school strengths/weakness and required solutions • Preventing absence becoming embedded and irreversible • Improved behaviour of pupils (where needs have been identified and met) • A reduction in exclusions • Reduction of need for specialist, expensive, education provisions (often required when absence becomes entrenched) • The reduction of the number of young people requiring solutions to complex issues • The reduction in youth offending • Improved outcomes for young people • Financial efficiency

4. Recommendations for action by the Government or others: 4.1 Challenging behaviour to be viewed as an aspect of school effectiveness and for the Government to consider the role of local authorities in providing challenge and support to school improvement as a means of addressing challenging behaviour 4.2 To build on the work of the National Strategies, particular the initiatives such as SEAL, Behaviour & Attendance Networks and Behaviour Challenge, in enhancing the capacity of mainstream schools 4.3 For persistent difficulties in a minority of pupils to be considered in the context of their family and community, and to maintain adequate support for parents in challenging circumstances. This could include parenting programmes for all ages and stages of development. 4.4 For specialist provision to be developed locally, so that the links between local specialist and mainstream provisions can be maintained, in order that the knowledge and expertise developed in specialist schools and services can be used to build the capacity of mainstream settings

September 2010

217

Memorandum submitted by The Association of Directors of Children’s Services Ltd (ADCS)

Introduction

1. ADCS is pleased to offer evidence to the Education Committee’s Inquiry into Behaviour and Discipline. Our comments are intended to represent the views of members of ADCS as the key employer group for the children’s workforce; a single workforce with a single, coherent set of needs.

2. The ADCS believes that improving behaviour is a shared responsibility between government, schools and other local partners together with parents and pupils themselves. The conclusions and recommendations highlighted in the Steer Report (Learning Behaviour: Lessons Learned - A Review of Behaviour Standards and Practices in our Schools) help consolidate the good progress being made.

3. Young people and teachers benefit from improved behaviour within schools as it provides a positive environment for learning as well as encouraging positive social behaviour inside and outside the classroom. Improved standards of behaviour leads to improved attainment and wellbeing outcomes for children and young people. Those who thrive in learning in traditional curriculum taught classrooms can focus effectively, whilst appropriate alternative provision is recommended for those that struggle to adapt to traditional classroom environments.

4. When behaviour problems are presented, local authorities can support schools in embedding tools and initiatives that can help identify and address the underlying problem (for example, strained family relationships and low self-esteem).

5. A child’s learning needs, achievement and progress should always be factors in the referral of a pupil to an intervention programme.

6. This paper looks at:-

• Factors in schools that support and reinforce positive behaviour; • Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed term and permanent exclusions; • Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour; • How special needs can best recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour; and • Government proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search, removal of written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers

Factors in schools that support and reinforce positive behaviour; 218

7. Schools do have a key role to play in encouraging positive behaviour in the classroom, such as providing an interesting and appropriate curriculum for pupils. In order to encourage positive behaviour schools need to be clear about their expectations of behaviour in school. This can be achieved by having a clear school policy on behaviour management, which is shared with all staff and pupils, reviewed annually, is fair and consistent, is proportionate to the offence, rewards all positive behaviour, takes account of the fact that people make mistakes, is constantly referred to in lessons, is clearly understood by parents and is focussed on the interests of the pupils. Initiatives such as Learning Support Units and Nurture Groups help improve behaviour by providing personalised support for pupils.

8. Schools promote initiatives such as Duke of Edinburgh Awards and Restorative Justice Techniques (run by the Youth Offending Team) both to promote and support good behaviour and to help improve challenging behaviour.

9. Local Authorities can support schools through the promotion and development of tools and initiatives that can be used in schools, for example:- • effective collaboration between schools and other agencies (such as Special Educational Needs Services, Education Psychology Services, Education Welfare Services); • co-ordination of multi-agency groups based on a framework of clear principles and values around social and emotional well-being, and behaviour and attendance within schools and settings; • co-ordinating the development of anti-bullying pledges to ensure children and young people are safe from bullying and intimidation. This could be supported by the Peer Mentoring Programme; • providing an evaluation toolkit for behaviour to ensure schools have effective systems and policies in place; and • ensuring pupil intervention is short-term, with clear entry requirements and a comprehensive plan to secure appropriate integration back into mainstream settings.

10. Government can support schools by providing behaviour management training for teachers, such as the National Programme for Specialist Leaders in Behaviour and Attendance (NPSLBA) and National Strategies online Inclusion Development Programme. 11. Government also has a role in working with the HE sector to ensure the NQT curriculum has sufficient time to cover the theory of child development and the links with emotional development and learning.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed term and permanent exclusions

12. Fixed-term exclusions can play a dual role – firstly as part of a sliding scale of consequences, when a previous consequence has not caused a change in behaviour. Secondly, fixed-term exclusion can serve to give all 219

parties breathing space whilst the next course of action is considered. It is good practice for exclusion to be followed up by a meeting with parents/child to re-examine the incident and clarify the expectations of the school and the responsibilities of the pupil. However, there is a danger with exclusions if pupils don’t want to be at schools and therefore feel rewarded for their behaviour. If exclusions do not lead to improvement then alternatives need to be found.

13. Fixed-term exclusions should be used as a last resort after utilising other tools and initiatives to modify behaviour.

14. Some schools rarely use exclusions whilst others are heavy users. Local Authorities have a critical role in monitoring this and in challenging and supporting those schools that have a high number of fixed-term and permanent exclusions.

15. Secondary schools are getting much better at tracking and monitoring behaviour. For example, some schools track behaviour from the start of the day and can over time point to where an issue started, who dealt with it and how it escalated throughout the day (or not). This can then be used with individual teachers to evidence their practice and matched within the school with those who manage challenging behaviour more effectively.

16. Absence (due to exclusion or non-authorised absence) leads to gaps in knowledge and skills of pupils in curriculum areas. This results in pupils having difficulties in engaging with lessons on their return to school, and can result in patterns of further poor behaviour. Where attendance problems persist Education Welfare Officers should be utilised to support the work already undertaken by the school.

17. Early intervention is key to improving behaviour as challenging behaviour may be due to undiagnosed learning, social or emotional difficulties. Once identified, the pupil will be able to receive appropriate support and in turn improve attainment results. Where support is required in the home environment, Parent/Family Support Workers will use a Common Assessment Framework (CAF) to work with the school, parent and child to ensure adequate support is provided.

18. Local Authorities can further support schools to improve behaviour and attendance by establishing inclusion partnership arrangements. These inclusion partnerships provide the clear structures and practices called for by Steer. Effective Inclusion Partnerships: • encourage close working relationship with other agencies, behaviour support services and the police; • use intelligent data to identify need and influence practice; • have clear structures and practices that are transparent and accepted as equitable by all members of the partnership • share good practice and identify any needs for development or review; and 220

• have National Strategy consultants present to provide critical challenge and link the partnership with other local agencies.

19. Effective collaborative working ensures all schools including Short Stay Schools cater for all pupils.

Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

20. As discussed in paragraph 16, Parent/Family Support Workers are a useful resource to help engage parents and carers in managing their child’s challenging behaviour. Parent/Family Support Workers engage in collaborative problem-solving on home-based issues and concerns; sign- posts parents/carers to groups for specific areas (such as SEN); hold parent support groups in Children’s Centres and provide advice and guidance to parents about practical interventions that can be used to support children’s learning and thinking skills, emotional and social development, self-care/life skills and (pre) literacy skills.

How special needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour

21. Any policy needs to clear and explicit to ensure pupils with SEN needs are recognised by all staff. There should not be a lower expectation for the behaviour of SEN pupils, but there should be an appropriate expectation and arrangements dependent on need.

Government proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search, removal for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers

22. The removal for written notice of detention outside school hours is a safeguarding issue, as consideration must be given to the safety of the pupil, age, distance and method of travel, home arrangements.

23. ADCS recommend that the Education Committee’s Inquiry into Behaviour and Discipline. further considers and seeks evidence to address the following questions and inform future proposals:

a. For those young people that feel isolated, why don’t these children feel a part of society/school? And is their behaviour necessary to survive in their community? b. How significant is parenting, neighbourhood and poverty in behavioural problems? c. When is the best time for agencies to intervene? And what is the best support that can be provided? d. Is it more effective to understand and remediate the issue or isolate, exclude and punish?

September 2010 221

Memorandum submitted by Granada Learning

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Pupil attitudes are strongly linked to behaviour and levels of attainment. To address discipline issues within schools, it is essential to analyse underlying attitudes. Where those attitudes reveal that a pupil is at risk of developing behavioural difficulties, targeted interventions can be implemented to lessen the incidence of poor behaviour. 1.2 In each aspect of behaviour, discipline and attainment within schools, a process of measuring pupil attitudes, implementing targeted interventions, re-measuring attitudes and adjusting interventions, can have a profound effect both on avoiding negative developments and encouraging positive outcomes. 1.3 Attitudinal surveys – such as the Pupil Attitudes to Self and School (P.A.S.S.) Rating Scale – can be used in a range of educational environments to help understand pupil motivation and learner attitudes. Attitudinal surveys also inform therapeutic interventions and reintegration planning in Pupil Referral Units. 1.4 Central to the effectiveness of this approach is the quality of the data gathered by schools and the skill of teachers in using it to inform their interventions. For example, although two pupils may display the same behaviour, the causes could be different and therefore the right interventions will also be different. Understanding this and being able to respond appropriately avoids negative behaviours being inadvertently reinforced.

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 W3 Insights Ltd was founded in 2002 by educational psychologists following their development of attitudinal surveys in conjunction with four universities and 20 local authorities. The company is now involved in assessing up to 5,000 pupils a day and works with schools spanning approximately 100 local authorities. In 2010 it became part of the Granada Learning Group of educational companies, which also includes GL Assessment and Kirkland Rowell. 2.2 Through six years of research and development, W3 Insights created the Pupil Attitudes to Self and School (P.A.S.S.) Rating Scale. P.A.S.S. measures specific aspects of children’s attitudes towards themselves as learners and their attitudes towards school. It enables early identification of pupils at risk of developing behavioural problems, as well as early intervention based on informed analysis, so reducing or avoiding the negative impact of disaffection. Around 3,000 primary and secondary schools in the UK have completed P.A.S.S. audits. Further background information about P.A.S.S. is contained in Annex I.

3. THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNER ATTITUDES TO EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 3.1 Attitudes are judgments and a student’s attitude to learning influences his or her experience of education, with significant effects on overall levels of attainment. Whereas tastes can change on a week-by-week basis, a core attitude is much more stable. Regularly assessing these attitudes in an educational context helps to build a picture of a student’s strengths and weaknesses and likely future behaviour. Core attitudes are expected to change as a function of experience, so by developing well- targeted interventions, problems can be averted. 3.2 For example, ‘preparedness for learning’ – that is, whether pupils have the skills they need to learn within the classroom setting – is a factor highly correlated with learning and behavioural difficulties. Identifying a lack of preparedness for learning gives 222

schools both an explanation for poor behaviour as well as an indication of how to target study support. In analysing this attitudinal dimension, P.A.S.S. examines a pupil’s study skills, attentiveness, powers of concentration and emotional responses to learning demands. In one case, a primary school found a weakness in its students’ preparedness for learning and consequently designed appropriate targeted interventions. Its exclusion rate fell from 20 short-term exclusions to none in a two year period.1 Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions 3.3 Without analysis of their core attitudes, factors which fundamentally affect a student’s ability to achieve can go un-noticed while suppositions – rather than evidence – about the causes of poor behaviour form the basis of school-pupil interactions. Schools therefore use attitudinal surveys to design worthwhile preventive, corrective and supportive interventions. 3.4 Specifically, the schools that W3 Insights works with use P.A.S.S. in order to: ‐ understand the causes of current and likely behaviours ‐ target and support individual students through intervention programmes ‐ inform their pastoral review and guidance processes ‐ decide how to allocate resources effectively ‐ raise standards of attainment and pupil well-being ‐ develop an understanding of the systemic contribution of whole school policy and practice to the behavioural climate 3.5 Local authorities also have a role to play in analysing and reacting to pupil attitudes. For example, Local authority A announced plans in November 2009 to start regular surveys in all its schools, starting with those taking part in the Targeted Mental Health in Schools programme. One of the schools involved had in 2009 been given ‘notice to improve’ by Ofsted, but by 2010 its overall effectiveness was judged as ‘satisfactory’ and the school’s capacity for sustained improvement was ‘good’. The school cites P.A.S.S. as having been central to achieving significantly higher attainment, its results having informed interventions with their most vulnerable pupils, as well as having informed whole-school change where re-measurement showed little change in particular dimensions.2 3.6 P.A.S.S. can be used in a range of educational contexts, having been standardised to incorporate most types of SEN provision, including pupil referral units and segregated and integrated provision. Consequently, and especially in a multiagency context, local authorities use P.A.S.S. reports to help support joined-up casework and increase opportunities for collaborative problem-solving. In addition, P.A.S.S. is often used by local authorities to gain clarity on aspirations across their locality. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff 3.7 Using attitudinal surveys can uncover the causes of behaviour and so support targeted interventions, but it can also indicate likely future behaviours. This enables early intervention strategies, potentially avoiding the negative impact on the pupil, their cohort and the school. Moreover, the impact and progress of any intervention can be measured by re-testing pupils, giving confidence in the intervention and enabling teachers to refine their techniques.

1 School A. 2 School B. 223

3.8 At School C, a mixed 11-16 specialist arts college, two children who had exhibited similar disruptive behaviour completed attitudinal surveys. The results showed completely different causes: one pupil had low self-worth, while the other had a poor attitude about attending school. As their teacher commented, ‘It was the same behaviour, but we had to deal with it in different ways.’ By understanding the pupils’ attitudes, teaching strategies could be adjusted and consequently their behaviour improved. 3.9 By using P.A.S.S., School D – a mixed comprehensive secondary school in Flintshire – found that the progression of some pupils was being hindered by low learner confidence and perceived learning capability. Thirty students across a mix of years were targeted to improve communication and self esteem. A youth leader was brought in to run sessions including team building activities and ice breakers. The result was that many students became more involved in the school community, joining various clubs and extra-curricular activities, and teachers observed an immediate improvement in confidence and the ability to communicate with others. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools 3.10 Before a pupil’s attendance and behaviour deteriorate, their attitudes can deteriorate. Indeed, during the piloting of P.A.S.S., the University of Exeter validated the predictive correlation between current attitudes to attendance and future actual attendance as being 0.9.3 3.11 By measuring a pupil’s attitude towards school attendance, teachers can identify those pupils who are at significant risk of developing a pattern of non-attendance while they are still attending school. In turn, teachers can design pupil-specific interventions – while the pupil is still at school – to address the attitudinal factors which are likely to contribute to the predicted non-attendance. 3.12 For example, based on P.A.S.S. scores, one school – a mixed 11-16 specialist sports college – identified a high number of students with low self-esteem. Teachers then worked with those students to develop their SEAL skills (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) and set up three projects to raise their self-regard: boxing for boys, self- defence for girls and a K9 project (working with dogs) with their KS3 students. As a result of the programme, the college saw significant improvements in the attitudes of each pupil, with the rate of exclusion reduced and attendance improved.4 3.13 However, it is important to look at the full range of a student’s attitudes, rather than analyse attitudes to attendance in isolation. Attendance gives a sense of whether or not a student can cope with structure and routine. To support longer-term positive outcomes, the student’s attitude to themselves as a learner needs to addressed. As one teacher commented, ‘in the three years that I have been in the College the [persistent absence] figure has fallen from 10% to 4.9% … This is through a number of systems and attitudinal changes but the P.A.S.S. data has been invaluable.’5 How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools 3.14 By baselining attitudes and modelling evidence-based explanations of behaviour, teachers and schools can identify opportunities to encourage positive behaviour and target their approach accordingly. For example: ‐ teachers can improve their understanding of pupils’ learning preferences, as well as attitudes towards themselves and their lessons

3 Tricia Nash (2001), Exeter School of Education. Commissioned by Sandwell LA. 4 School E. 5 School E. 224

‐ progression for students of differing abilities can be modelled, explained and encouraged 3.15 Especially when used in conjunction with wider information and datasets, attitudinal data can play a significant role in supporting and focusing a school’s approach to standards and self-evaluation: ‘The College had an Ofsted inspection in January 2010 and we moved from a “satisfactory” school in 2007 to a “good school with outstanding features” in the latest inspection. We achieved “outstanding” for care, guidance and support and the P.A.S.S. work definitely contributed to this grading.’6 The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour 3.16 Local authority B uses attitudinal surveys in every school and pupil referral unit (PRU). In one case, a five-year-old boy was transferred to a PRU and found to have consistently low attitudes across all nine core attitudinal dimensions. This profile is statistically quite unusual, and indicated potential mental health and emotional issues. The PRU decided to implement a broad package of clinically intensive and therapeutic interventions to address the full spectrum of his needs. A term later, they took a second attitudinal measure. In the subsequent profile, some attitudes remained low, but the areas of greatest positive change appear consistent with a student who feels listened to and validated. The second profile was then used as the basis for designing and implementing a successful reintegration plan for the student back into his mainstream primary school; ‘successful’ meaning that he stayed and made a go of the return placement, without a great deal of additional support. 3.17 The behavioural curriculum is often modified extensively using such feedback in these settings. P.A.S.S. is widely used to inform and evaluate child-centred approaches to intervention in the most challenging behavioural contexts: ‐ working with pupils who have been repeatedly excluded and placed in a pupil referral unit ‐ informing and evaluating referral criteria for more intensive provision ‐ evaluating the impact of provision where pupils are being supported outside the mainstream framework (such as Playing for Success) ‐ supporting effective reintegration planning and programmes

4. CONCLUSION 4.1 Rather than responding solely to the behaviour displayed by pupils, schools should analyse the attitudes on which behaviour is based. 4.2 Attitudinal surveys, such as P.A.S.S., uncover the causes of behaviour, as well as likely future behaviour. This enables schools to develop early intervention strategies, potentially avoiding the negative impact on the pupil, their cohort and the whole school. Moreover, the impact and progress of any intervention can be measured by re-testing pupils, giving confidence in the intervention and enabling teachers to refine their techniques. In short, schools can address the causes of behaviour, rather than simply managing discipline issues.

6 School E. 225

5. ANNEX I – THE DEVELOPMENT BY W3 INSIGHTS OF P.A.S.S. About P.A.S.S. 5.1 P.A.S.S (Pupil Attitudes to Self and School) is a 50 item pupil attitude rating scale. It assesses nine core dimensions linked to behavioural difficulties and well-being: ‐ Feelings about school: sometimes called ‘school connectedness’, this dimension can indicate feelings of social exclusion and bullying. ‐ Perceived learning capability: offers a snapshot of a learner’s impressions of self-efficacy and can reveal early warning signs of demoralisation and disaffection. ‐ Self regard: self esteem focussed on learning. It therefore has a greater correlation with achievement. ‐ Preparedness for learning: the questions around this dimension prompt pupils to ask themselves, ‘Do I have the tools to do the learning job?’ ‐ Attitudes to teachers: a student’s perception of relationships with teachers. ‐ General work ethic: the motivation to succeed in life. It is about purpose and direction, not just at school but beyond into adult life. ‐ Confidence in learning: a measure of perseverance in the face of challenge. ‐ Attitudes to attendance: a pupil’s attitudes about attendance are highly correlated with his or her future actual attendance. ‐ Response to curriculum demands: this motivational measure is focussed narrowly on a pupil’s motivation to undertake and complete the tasks set within the school’s curriculum. P.A.S.S. reliability and robustness 5.2 P.A.S.S. was originally developed over six years by educational psychologists working with four universities and 20 local authorities, and was piloted with more than 100 schools. Subsequently, P.A.S.S. provides standardised attitude reporting based on a national sample of more than 250,000 pupils at individual, cohort, whole school and local authority levels. Results can be broken down to show how the school compares nationally, as well as to show attitudes according to year group, gender and ethnicity. Integrating the data with other database systems enables risk modelling and highly contextualised interventions. 5.3 P.A.S.S. has been verified for test-retest reliability, demonstrating that it measures core attitudes rather than shifting attitudes and tastes. Without this validity, scores would vary significantly when re-measured at another time and be skewed by unknown and tangential influences. Having a stable indication enables schools to intervene appropriately and allocate resources efficiently. P.A.S.S. has a minimum test-retest interval of ten weeks, meaning that within a term a school can analyse the effectiveness of any interventions informed by P.A.S.S. within a single term.

September 2010

226

Memorandum submitted by Children’s Food Campaign

Introduction

1. The Children’s Food Campaign aims to improve young people’s health and wellbeing through better food – and food teaching – in schools and by protecting children from junk food marketing. We are supported by over 150 national organisations and co-ordinated by Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming (for more information see www.childrensfoodcampaign.org.uk).

2. As our expertise is in the area of food, we limit the content of this submission to this issue. We are pleased to present the evidence linking food and behaviour, and the need for a proactive whole-school approach to good food. We would be similarly pleased to provide further written or oral evidence to the Committee.

From the perspective of children’s health and well-being

3. There is good evidence to show that, as well as promoting physical health, a balanced diet contributes to children’s mental health and well-being, with resultant impacts on children’s behaviour and ability to take advantage of the educational opportunities available to them. While evidence in this area is not complete, it is substantial and continues to grow.

4. While we do not argue that food is the sole solution to the complex problems of challenging behaviour amongst children, it is clear that ensuring children eat a healthy diet can play a role in preventing poor behaviour, and thus interventions to improve and maintain the serving of healthy food in schools is a key part of measures to improve behaviour amongst pupils.

5. We draw the Committee’s attention to the following sources of information and health which together summarise much of the evidence on food and behaviour, with particular relevance to schools. A summary of the relevant findings from each source is included for the Committee’s information.

6. Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum (2008) Links between diet and behaviour. The influence of nutrition on mental health. “A majority of the studies investigated during a 2006 FSA systematic review noted good evidence that eating breakfast is beneficial to the performance and behaviour of school children. This view was reinforced by our witnesses, Professor David Benton and Professor Andrew Scholey. Both had conducted research which found that eating breakfast improved the cognitive performance of some children…There is evidence that eating breakfast protects against the decline of children’s attention during the morning.”1

7. “The results of the Aylesbury trial [a trial conducted by Bernard Gesch in 1996-7 at HM Young Offenders’ Institute Aylesbury set out to test the hypothesis that changes in diet could reduce the incidence of recorded offences by young offenders inside prison] show that when the nutrients were provided there was a 26% reduction in the rate of recorded disciplinary incidents and a 37% reduction in the rate of more

1 Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum (2008) Links between diet and behaviour. The influence of nutrition on mental health. London: Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum 227

serious offences including violence reported to the Governor among the group receiving the supplements.” 2

8. Colquhoun, D., Wright, N., Pike, J., Gatenby, L. (2008) Evaluation of Eat Well Do Well: Kingston upon Hull’s School Meal Initiative. The Eat Well Do Well initiative (which saw a range of interventions including free, healthy breakfast, dinner, after school snack and fruit to junior school pupils Hull) “has had an important impact on creating calmer learning environments within which children have the opportunity to reach their potential. Headteachers had witnessed the changes in their schools and were generally delighted with the initiative. The role of adults in the dining room and the social practices within the dining room are important aspects of the initiative.”3

9. Kuo, F.E. (2006) Horticulture, wellbeing and mental health: from intuitions to evidence This review of research linking horticulture with improved wellbeing found a diverse range of beneficial behavioural outcomes that are likely to influence children’s time at school, including lower incidence of aggression, greater ability to cope with poverty, better life functioning, greater life satisfaction, reduced attention deficit symptoms, greater strength of community.4

10. Mental Health Foundation (2005) Feeding minds. The impact of food on mental health. London: Mental Health Foundation “Many parents, teachers and others have reported great improvements when dietary changes are introduced to children with ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder]. Two food groups that have been implicated through clinical research are essential fatty acids (EFAs) and minerals. Studies have found some EFAs to be significantly low in hyperactive children. A similar relationship has been found with levels of iron in children with symptoms of ADHD.”5

11. School Food Trust (2007) School lunch and behaviour: systematic observation of classroom behaviour following a school dining room intervention. “A combined nutrition-environment intervention in primary schools had a beneficial impact on pupils’ behaviour in the teacher-pupil setting, but was associated with increased off-task behaviours when pupils were being asked to work together without direct teacher supervision. The nutrition-first intervention was more powerfully associated with this effect than the environment-first intervention. The findings are consistent with the more subjective anecdotal evidence from teachers that pupils are more on-task following a healthier lunch in school.”6

12. School Food Trust (2009) School lunch and learning behaviour in primary schools: an intervention study

2 Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum (2008) Links between diet and behaviour. The influence of nutrition on mental health. London: Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum 3 Colquhoun, D., Wright, N., Pike, J., Gatenby, L. (2008) Evaluation of Eat Well Do Well: Kingston upon Hull’s School Meal Initiative. Hull: Centre for Educational Studies 4 Kuo, F.E. (2006) Horticulture, wellbeing and mental health: from intuitions to evidence, ISHS Acta Horticulturae 639: XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Expanding Roles for Horticulture in Improving Human Well-Being and Life Quality 5 Mental Health Foundation (2005) Feeding minds. The impact of food on mental health. London: Mental Health Foundation 6 School Food Trust (2007) School lunch and behaviour: systematic observation of classroom behaviour following a school dining room intervention. Sheffield: School Food Trust 228

“Primary school pupils were more alert and over three times more likely to be ‘on- task’ working with the teacher in the classroom after lunch, following an intervention to improve the dining environment and the nutritional quality of the food served.”7

13. School Food Trust (2009) School lunch and learning behaviour in secondary schools: an intervention study “Secondary school pupils were more on-task (concentrating and engaged) and less off-task (disengaged) in the classroom after lunch following a lunchtime intervention to improve the dining environment and the nutritional quality of the food.”8

14. Van de Weyer, C. (2005) Changing diets, changing minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour. London: Sustain “Several studies have shown that children who eat breakfast can improve their daily and long-term academic performance.”9

15. “A number of published studies have shown that hungry children behave worse in school, registering reductions in fighting and absence and increased attention when meals are provided.”10

Evidence for the Committee

We are pleased to respond to the following points:

• How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools; • Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions;

16. As the evidence above suggests, ensuring that sufficient quantities of healthy food are available to every child should be a key part of measures to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools and address challenging behaviour. In particular, we make the following recommendations:

School lunches 17. The nutritional standards for school meals and additional standards for other food available in schools should be retained, with compliance monitored through Ofsted inspections. 18. School capital funding should be ring-fenced where necessary for spending on installing and maintaining dining facilities and kitchens sufficient for producing freshly-prepared meals for all pupils. 19. The School Lunch Grant should be retained and ring-fenced in order to support the transformation of the school meals service which is still underway. Doing so would enable the increase in school meal take-up to continue to a level at which the service is economically viable. Failure to do so is likely to lead to the quality of school meals falling, resulting in declining take up.

7 School Food Trust (2009) School lunch and learning behaviour in primary schools: an intervention study. Sheffield: School Food Trust 8 School Food Trust (2009) School lunch and learning behaviour in secondary schools: an intervention study. Sheffield: School Food Trust 9 Van de Weyer, C. (2005) Changing diets, changing minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour. London: Sustain 10 Van de Weyer, C. (2005) Changing diets, changing minds: how food affects mental well being and behaviour. London: Sustain 229

20. The Department for Education should require the introduction of stay-on-site policies for the whole school population. 21. We believe that the benefits of healthy school meals are sufficient to warrant the universal provision of free meals to all pupils. However, we recognise that fiscal constraints will prevent the implementation of such a policy in the short- term. Therefore we advise that attention should be paid to improving uptake amongst children already eligible for free school meals, for example by removing stigmatisation through the implementation of cashless systems. Plans to extend eligibility for free school meals to all primary school children living in poverty (not just those from families receiving out-of-work benefits), which were cancelled in June 2010, should also be reinstated.

Breakfast clubs 22. Every child from a household with an income below the poverty line should be eligible for a free healthy breakfast, and the Department of Education should provide additional funding to assist schools to set up breakfast clubs. This mirrors the recommendation of the Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum11. We further suggest that such funding could be part of the Pupil Premium. The quotes in appendix A give an indication of the value placed on breakfast clubs by staff in schools where Magic Breakfast (www.magicbreakfast.com), a child nutrition charity, operates.

Food education 23. Food growing activities should happen routinely in every school as part of the school day, not solely as an extra-curricula activity. Funding should be made available for schools to install gardens and run after-school gardening clubs as preventative therapy.

• Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour;

24. Food provides a particularly valuable way of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s behaviour, and their children’s education more broadly. Parents and families should be invited to join the children for a healthy school lunch and to take part in nutrition education programmes.

September 2010

Appendix A: the value of breakfast clubs

25. The quotes below are from teachers commenting on the difference the “Magic Breakfast” initiative has made to the behaviour of the children in their classrooms12:

26. “I’ve seen a child slip under his desk, faint with hunger. I’ve taken him out, given him a drink and one of your bagels and he sprang back into life. He’d probably not eaten anything since school dinner the day before. That’s why we rely on Magic Breakfast."

11 Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum (2008) Links between diet and behaviour. The influence of nutrition on mental health. London: Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum 12 Magic Breakfast (2007) Magic Breakfast Stories. Available: http://www.magicbreakfast.com/about/magic_breakfast_stories [29 September 2010] 230

27. "With breakfast, children are ready and able to learn. Oliver was on report nearly every day for disruptive behaviour. Since coming to the breakfast club he’s become a bright and engaged student who is eager to participate in lessons. "

28. "Zara, one of our youngest children, often gets in late and quite upset. And if she kicks off, the whole school kicks off. When we realised it was down to hunger we started giving her a bagel and some milk, which settled her down and meant she could join her class without disrupting the other children.”

29. "Jamil is on the street from 7am, he eats more than anyone else in the club. He is doing quite well in school now, but if the club wasn’t there, he’d just go without"

30. "We have two brothers who were being left in the playground early in the morning and would barely make it into class before being sent to the office for disrupting the class. Since they've been going to breakfast club not only are they happier and more settled, but their performance has improved and it's been a long time since we've seen them in the office!"

31. "One of our boys suffered from relatively severe behavioural issues which prevented his mother from seeking work. Since he has been coming to our clubs she has been able to complete her education and has just started her new job. Her son is much happier and more settled and his behaviour is significantly improved."

32. "One of our children was quite disruptive and unhappy. Now he's coming to breakfast club he's much happier and his teacher has told us that he's stopped throwing tantrums first thing in the morning."

September 2010 231

Memorandum submitted by Oxfordshire County Council

Executive Summary

1. Oxfordshire County Council is pleased to provide evidence to the Education Select Committee on the Enquiry into Behaviour and Discipline in Schools. We recognise that some fundamental aspects of behaviour management apply universally but locally tailored solutions often work best and suggest that national policy encourages locally-driven solutions.

2. Oxfordshire has made significant recent progress in improving behaviour, reducing exclusions and persistent absence through the Success Project for pupils struggling to manage their behaviour because of social and emotional difficulties. The project has 10 strands of work, each with a paired lead from a senior LA officer and a secondary Headteacher. Innovative work streams are tested out in school partnerships and good practice shared across the county through themed conferences twice a year.

3. Our objective was to reduce the numbers of pupils in groups vulnerable to poor behaviour and to improve their outcomes. Behaviour is the presenting symptom of a range of complex underlying conditions requiring a range of approaches.

4. Significant progress has been made in understanding the root causes of unacceptable behaviour and then intervening early. Very often the causes of negative behaviour are to be found in the adult interactions in disorganised and chaotic families. Our approach has been to help children to build resilience to cope with their situation and through forming teams to work holistically with families to address problems. The role of the Home- School Family Link Worker has become increasingly effective as have initiatives such as the Family Intervention Project which seeks to improve the behaviours of dysfunctional and anti-social families.

5. We welcome this government’s commission into Early Intervention- reporting to Iain Duncan Smith, as hugely important in helping to broaden strategies that will help to tackle poor behaviour.

6. We aspire to educate all children locally, through the right provision, in the right place and at the right time for every child whatever their needs. Our best schools believe they have a duty to educate all the children born into their community. They gain high exam results for all and manage behaviour well, without excluding pupils; they also tend to have the best attendance and strongest links with parents and the local community. Making sure that all our schools are as good as the best is the key to managing behaviour across the county.

7. More attention must be paid to the ongoing training needs for all school staff in managing increasingly complex children exhibiting challenging behaviours, mental health problems and special educational needs. 232

Sufficient time must be spent during initial teacher training to understand these agendas.

8. We welcome approaches that ensure that schools bring order and discipline to every classroom so that all children are able to achieve to the best of their ability and believe that the best way to do that is to make sure that children with complex problems and from the most disadvantaged backgrounds get the resources, support and help that they need to remain in school.

9. A significant rise in excluded pupils will not only put a massive strain on resources but is likely to lead to more children being on the streets, engaged in anti-social behaviour, crime and unemployment. Any policy that seeks to improve behaviour in schools through exclusion must take account of risks and unintended consequences.

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

10. Classroom control remains a priority for every teacher throughout their career. Without the skills to manage classroom behaviour, teachers become stressed. While some staff have innate skills in developing positive relationships and managing classes, for most it is a journey that requires constant fuel. Insufficient attention appears to be paid to understanding the causes of pupil behaviour and how to address it during initial teacher training.

11. In Oxfordshire schools that are managing and promoting positive pupil behaviour tend to employ the following strategies; • Continuously support all of their staff to develop, improve and hone their skills; sharing good practice with each other, volunteers, supply teachers and parents to develop a culture that promotes consistently positive behaviour at school and in the wider community. • Has clear ‘living’ strategies, policies, guidance and training in place for managing behaviour and special educational needs and the interfaces between them are understood by all staff, parents and pupils. • Recognise that behaviour is an external symptom of an underlying difficulty and therefore try to get to the root of what is causing the behaviour be it; ¾ Boredom ¾ A way of distracting attention from an underlying problem e.g. SEN ¾ Poor parenting ¾ Peer pressure – fear of bullying ¾ A cry for help –abuse, neglect, anxiety ¾ Medical – depression, an diagnosed visual or hearing impairment ¾ Hormonal – linked to irritability ¾ Frustration linked to a condition – especially Autistic spectrum or inability to understand or absorb learning as presented ¾ Low sense of self worth and desire to be noticed 233

¾ Different social norms –used to talking over each other, or shouting over a constantly blaring television ¾ Lack of attachment to family, friends, school. ¾ Response to circumstances e.g. bereavement or divorce • Believes that ¾ their school is responsible for educating all children born into the local community whatever their needs and will provide a curriculum that can properly meet a wide range of needs. ¾ to intervene earlier through a holistic ‘Team Around Family’ approach is more likely to work than exclusion and blame. ¾ teaching children to self-manage their behaviour rather than doing it for them, is more likely to reap long term solutions and supporting families to reinforce those strategies beyond school is vitally important • Understands that ¾ some children are more resilient to coping with family difficulties than others and supports those who need it most ¾ above all else, most children respond positively to fairness, consistency and clearly understood boundaries. ¾ intervening early prevents low level persistent disruptive behaviour from becoming the norm or escalating. ¾ praising, celebrating and rewarding good behaviour further improves behaviour. ¾ children and families ‘attached’ to their school through sense of belonging are more likely to have positive attitudes to behaviour and that children gain attachment through belonging to and taking part in teams, clubs, performance, residentials/school trips, exhibitions; being given a responsibility and having a significant adult who believes in them. Children who mis-behave are often punished by exclusion from taking part in the very experiences that attach them more firmly to school

The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools and the impact upon schools and their staff

12. Low level disruptive behaviour is one of the most pressing issues facing schools. Research evidence confirms that the majority of pupils engage well with their work but a significant number of pupils cause low level disruption and a much smaller group present in a more disruptive and unacceptable way. Unaddressed low level disruptive behaviour can worsen, leading to loss of control needed to lead teaching and learning. This has the effect of wearing down teacher patience and energy and causes ongoing stress.

13. Good teachers address this immediately through; ¾ Introspection – ‘are my lessons sufficiently challenging, interesting and differentiated to take account of all learners including those with special and additional needs?’ 234

¾ Delivery of the school’s behaviour policies which involve consistent approaches, clear boundaries, fairly administered and well understood schemes of reward and punishment ¾ Communication with parents and involvement in shared approaches

14. Unintentional disruptive behaviour is identified by good teachers who respond appropriately. This is particularly relevant where pupils have an Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) which may involve social and communication difficulties, repetitive and obsessive behaviours and difficulties in managing behaviour when frustrated. These traits can often unintentionally lead to what appears to be challenging behaviour in the classroom.

15. E.g. an ASC pupil asked to stop tapping his pen on the desk may well stop but then may start tapping a foot. Literally he has done as requested but may not understand it is the repetitive nature of the disruption, not the pen, which is annoying the teacher. An untrained teacher sees that as defiance and reacts with a punishment. The child not understanding what they have done wrong may become upset and even aggressive, resulting in an exclusion from school.

16. Oxfordshire has recognised that, in our county, too many children with special educational needs are excluded and we need to improve training of all staff to the standard experienced by children in our best schools which differentiate for these pupils so they can access the curriculum, learn to read social cues and manage their responses.

17. Constantly keeping all staff trained across the full spectrum of special and additional needs and understanding the needs of individual children while being seen to carry out behaviour policies consistently, is more of a challenge in secondary schools where children move round from teacher to teacher for short periods of time each week. Some of our secondary schools have had great success by operating a primary school model in year 7 where children have fewer changes of teacher in the first few months.

18. Characteristics of conduct disorder typically include fighting, physical cruelty, destructiveness, stealing and truancy (including running away from home) refusal to follow rules and offending behaviour without sign of remorse or guilt. Often without routine by staying out all night and truanting during the day, teenagers take risks with their health and safety through substance misuse and sexually risky behaviour. Even though intelligent, they rarely achieve at school.

19. Evidence shows this behaviour is linked to feelings of low self worth and failure. It is common to blame others and frequently mistrust adults; avoiding interventions such as behaviour therapy and psychotherapy. Children from dysfunctional families and those in the looked after system are most affected.

235

20. This type of behaviour puts a huge strain on school staff, requires expertise and resources from a range of professionals.

21. Although small in number, violent incidents do occur and it is essential that all staff have training in procedures for dealing with a physical threat. Oxfordshire’s preferred model ‘Team Teach’ emphasises the use of de- escalation strategies.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions

22. As part of the Success project, we are piloting the Good Behaviour Game (GBG) with 6 primary schools in partnership with Brookes University through the Knowledge Transfer Partnership. The GBG is based on a 25 year evidence base of success in improving behaviour of very challenging children in the USA. The programme will be rolled out in 2011-12

23. Over the past 3 years, Oxfordshire has been engaged in a significant programme to increase the capacity of mainstream schools to manage behaviour better through training to deliver the SEAL programme (Social Emotional Aspects of Learning), Restorative Approaches, NPSLBA (National Programme for Specialist Leaders in Behaviour and Attendance) and whole school training in Team Teach

24. Simultaneously, we have re-shaped provision for pupils at risk of exclusion through the Success Project, by setting up a range short term local ‘courses’ for challenging pupils including a 20-day self-management course and a girls’ motivational programme. Pupils join others from different schools to learn to manage themselves in a group, working with many people from different backgrounds. These courses give them the skills to return to their own school and settle down with their peers.

25. The results of that work are paying off; Permanent exclusions halved in 2010 from 81 to 45 and fixed term exclusions reduced from 4,020 to 3,095

26. A successful partnership has developed between school leaders and the local authority through the establishment of an In-Year Fair Access Protocol, where area-based panels identify pupils at risk of exclusion, share ideas to reduce exclusions and manage ‘fresh start’ moves between schools. The panels allocate funding to a school to support a pupil’s move and resettlement.

27. Based on local evidence, we favour promoting behaviour partnerships between schools.

Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children's challenging behaviour

236

28. Evidence shows the quality of parental involvement in the early years helps a child to develop secure attachments and to establish personal and learning skills. Promoting good parenting skills is a priority through children’s centres programmes.

29. Home-School Link Workers, effectively employed by school partnerships, work alongside parents/carers to manage their child’s behaviour and encourage better relationships with school.

30. Other teams supporting families improving results in relation to pupils’ access to school and parent co-operation include Common Assessment Framework/Team Around the Child (CAF/TAC), Family And Children Early Intervention Team (FACEIT) and Family Intervention Project (FIP).

31. We have recently set up a single Family Information Service, developing as a one-stop shop for advice to families

32. Following evidence that many children from disadvantaged families find it hard to make a successful transition from primary to secondary school, we are piloting an ‘attachment to school’ project that ensures fragile families are supported to become engaged with the staff at the secondary school before their child goes there. The results so far are promising.

How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools' policies on behaviour and discipline

33. Most schools have a Special Educational Needs and a Behaviour Policy. Some have combined the two; recognising that they are inextricably linked. Since 2009, the county has modelled a combined SEN and Inclusion policy ‘Included in Success; The right provision, in the right place at the right time for every child.’

34. A senior leader in the school should champion children with special and additional needs, ensuring that policies are translated into action to improve results for these children and that all new staff are fully trained.

35. If the Ofsted framework paid much closer attention to school approaches and outcomes for children with special educational needs as well as those from disadvantaged backgrounds, it would assist in driving up standards.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

36. Where a child is not managing in mainstream school and is at risk of exclusion, some schools adapt the curriculum so the pupil remains on the school roll, is part of the school community but some aspects of their learning may be off-site with alternative providers. This is easier at KS4 with more vocational options, college courses and work based providers and is an effective option. These pupils are more likely to achieve qualifications. However, alternative provision is expensive and schools are reluctant 237

always to spend on this. The local authority is concerned that, if school budgets reduce, this style of provision will become most at risk.

37. When a pupil is excluded more than once and in key stage 4, they rarely return to mainstream school and complete their education in alternative provision. The standard of teaching and provision in many pupil referral units has historically been poor. It has been seen as a career cul-de-sac and a place where schools sent their inadequate teachers to help out. Results have been poor nationally for these pupils. Although improving, there is a need to encourage and incentivise the best teachers to teach these pupils - society can not afford to ignore this very disaffected group.

Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

38. Persistent absence from school is a type of behaviour with many causes requiring different solutions. Children absent themselves from school for many reasons other than genuine illness but may present as ill because they are; ¾ Fearful of being bullied ¾ Young carers; worried about a family member who is ill, suicidal, or at risk of domestic violence. ¾ Can’t understand the teacher ¾ Bored with lessons on offer or in conflict with specific teachers ¾ Avoiding punishment - homework not done ¾ Wanting to help at home with a new baby in the house ¾ Embroiled in a family in conflict, debt, relationship breakdown – all seem to be more important than school ¾ Not encouraged to prioritise school by parents with their own complex problems.

39. Teachers report that children who have significant periods of absence from school find it hard to re-engage with friends and learning; when returned to school following a formal process or court order, may respond by anti social behaviour resulting in further exclusion – repeating the cycle and continuing the absence.

40. Our highest achieving schools have high attendance rates. At the Outstanding Schools award ceremony; pupils describe why their school is outstanding. All mention a sense of belonging to the school community, teachers who listen and give time to individuals who need help, the wide range of extra curricular activities on offer, valuing relationships and caring for each other.

41. The links between attendance and life-chances need to be made more explicit to parents and teachers; training to recognise signs and causes of potential disengagement from school is essential alongside a committed approach to try to re-engage before a problem becomes chronic.

42. Our data shows that a high proportion of children with high absence go on to become NEET. Oxfordshire is therefore making sure that it’s Team 238

Around the Child and Team Around the Family takes earlier referrals for children who may not be behaving in a disruptive way in class but are starting to disengage.

The Government's proposals regarding teachers' powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours and the extent of teachers' disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July

43. Giving teachers a more general search power covering any item which may cause disorder or pose a threat to safety would simplify the existing policy. We recommend that staff are trained to manage those powers safely.

44. Schools give 24 hours notice of a detention to parents for safety reasons so that arrangements can be made for alternative travel home and to reduce anxiety. This is important in winter darkness. As a rural county, there is additional challenge -significant numbers of pupils rely on school transport. If written notice is removed, a requirement to speak to a parent and agree reasonable and safe arrangements should be mandatory.

45. There is support for the strengthening of teachers' powers and the opportunity for schools to act quickly if a sanction is necessary. However, that must go alongside an expectation that all staff are trained to work positively with children with complex, special and additional needs and have a duty to take those needs into account through all activity.

46. It is too simplistic to assume that standards in schools and methods of controlling behaviour in the past were automatically better and therefore by simply returning to those methods we will solve the problems of today because; • Society is now very different, we live in a complex global rather than simple local world. • The school leaving age is now higher and expectations that children continue in learning up to age 18 is a recent requirement– (‘difficult’ children left school earlier in the past and if they disappeared even before the leaving date to get a job it was not frowned upon) • Historically, inspection was very variable, many children left without qualifications but no one was measuring, comparing or publishing results until 1992 when, under the Education (Schools) Act 1992, Ofsted was set up to inspect each state-funded school in the country and began to publish its reports. The requirements and expectations on schools have increased year on year to increase 5 A*-C including English and Maths – leaving behind the lowest achieving children and those with most disadvantage. The inspection focus needs to shift its gaze to our most disadvantaged children if we are to improve some of society’s problems. • Expectations in terms of school performance and data analysis in the form it exists today was unknown before 1992, making it impossible to compare qualifications, attendance, SEN outcomes, standards of behaviour. 239

• Children with SEN often went undiagnosed, were not expected to attend school or were educated in special schools. This is not the norm today. • The numbers of children with autistic spectrum conditions is increasing nationally (and is very high and rising in Oxfordshire.) This needs to be recognised and addressed within any behaviour policy. • Teachers had the respect of parents and the community and were not routinely vilified by government and the press as has been the case for the past 20 years. • Punishment went on without challenge however brutal; more freedoms should not allow a return to those conditions.

We welcome approaches that ensure that schools can bring order and discipline to every classroom so that all children are able to achieve to the best of their ability and believe that the best way to do that is to make sure that children with complex problems and from the most disadvantaged backgrounds get the resources, support and help that they need to remain in school.

Oxfordshire has analysed its unit costs on educating a child with behavioural difficulties in different settings. The approximate costs are; ¾ mainstream school £5,000 per year ¾ alternative provision £15,000 per year ¾ a county special school £20,000 per year ¾ Out of county independent special school – from £60,000 to £297,000 per year plus transport

We know that outcomes for permanently excluded pupils are extremely poor. A policy that leads to a significant rise in excluded pupils will not only put a massive strain on resources but is likely to lead to more children being on the streets, engaged in anti-social behaviour, crime and unemployment. Any policy that seeks to improve behaviour must take account of risks and unintended consequences.

September 2010

240

Memorandum submitted by The Runnymede Trust

Executive Summary

The issue of behaviour and discipline in schools, with regard specifically to the use of sanctions such as exclusion, is one which has caused great concern among the parents of Black children for some years1. The following response is based on work and research which has addressed these concerns and draws particular attention to recent exclusions statistics and research on appeals panels. The response makes reference to the last assessment of race equality and school exclusions undertaken by the previous government, proposes a movement towards zero permanent exclusions, and a less punitive approach to the parent/school relationship with regard to improving behaviour and discipline among children and young people.

About Runnymede Runnymede is a social policy research organisation focused on race equality and race relations. We work by:

• Identifying barriers to race equality and good race relations • Enabling effective action for social change • Influencing policy at all levels through providing thought leadership and robust evidence

Runnymede has been active in the field of education for many years. Within our current education work we devise and promote practical strategies for use in the classroom and, at community level, we aim to address and support the specific needs of minority ethnic young people. Further we focus on identifying, sustaining and augmenting improvements in race equality and social cohesion in the changing terrain of education policy and practice.

1 Weekes-Bernard, D (2010) Did They Get it Right? School Exclusions and Race Equality, Runnymede Perspectives Report, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/DidTheyGetItRight- 2010.pdf 241

1. Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions

1.1 Fixed-term and permanent exclusions are issues which disproportionately affect Black Caribbean and Black African children – particularly boys. Black Caribbean boys are three times more likely than their white counterparts to be excluded.

1.2 During 2008/09 nearly 6% of all pupils experienced a fixed term exclusion. However 11% of all Black Caribbean pupils and 11.4% of mixed Black Caribbean and White pupils were temporarily excluded during the same period2. The discrepancies are similar at the level of permanent exclusion, though the numbers are smaller. Over the same period, 0.10% of all pupils were permanently excluded, but 0.30% of all Black Caribbean and 0.25% of all Mixed Black Caribbean and White pupils experienced this sanction. It is worth noting that the numbers of these groups within the school population is very small3

1.3 Black Caribbean and mixed Black and White Caribbean boys experience a high number of exclusions – 16.6% of all Black Caribbean boys and 16.3% of all Mixed Black and White Caribbean experienced a fixed term exclusion during 2008/09 in comparison to 8% of their White and 4% of their Asian counterparts.

1.4 Research by the former Department for Education and Skills suggest a number of reasons as to why Black pupils are disproportionately excluded, including institutional racism. The report argues that Black pupils encounter both conscious and unconscious prejudice from teachers - for example, research has found that throughout their education black pupils are disciplined more (both in terms of frequency and severity) and often for milder offences than those leading to their white peers being punished. The report recommended that to help decrease exclusions of Black pupils there should be consistent and continued monitoring of pupil progress to identify problems early on, more teacher training

2 Department for Education (2010) Permanent and Fixed period Exclusions from Schools and Exclusions Appeals in England, SFR 22/2010, http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000942/SFR22_2010.pdf 3 As at January 2009 only 1.2% of all pupils were mixed Black and White Caribbean, and 1.4% of all pupils are Black Caribbean (these figures remain unchanged at January 2010), Department for Children Schools and Families (2009) Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics, January 2009, SFR 08/2009, http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000843/SFR08_2009.pdf 242

on matters of race equality, involving pupils in designing and setting rules, and providing support from academic mentors4.

1.5 Exclusions have an incredibly negative impact on a pupil’s education and future life chances and also negatively impact on society as a whole. In a recent article written for Runnymede’s quarterly publication The Runnymede Bulletin, the academics David Gillborn and David Drew reported that excluded pupils are 4 times more likely to finish their education without having gained academic qualifications5. Subsequent access to higher education and employment is therefore limited. Furthermore, if a child has lower academic achievement they are more likely to become involved in criminal activity6.

1.6 Taking the above issues into account, it is Runnymede’s position that schools should move towards a zero permanent exclusions policy. Research suggests that zero exclusion schools and local authorities are possible, reducing the damage that can be done to children and their families. Such an approach would also address the persistent disproportionate exclusions of some particular ethnic groups over others and minimise the clear cost to other services given the risk of underemployment, and criminal activity for permanently excluded young people.7

1.7 Given the extremely negative impact exclusions have on a pupil’s life chances, Runnymede is particularly concerned that the government will abolish Independent Appeals Panels as part of its ongoing education reforms. In a 2008 working paper on behaviour and schools the Conservative party stated that if elected they would end the right to appeal against exclusion, noting that such panels "undermine headteachers' authority"8. As Gillborn and Drew argue in their article for the Runnymede Bulletin, appeals panels represent a vital safeguard against miscarriages of justice and offer a chance for parents’ voices to be heard. In addition, only 2% of exclusions are overturned by appeals panels, and approximately 90% of exclusions are simply not brought before these independent groups, highlighting that the situation is far from a widespread undermining of teacher’s authority. It is crucial that teachers are held to account

4 Department for Education and Skills (2006) Exclusion of black pupils: priority review. Getting it. Getting it right., London. http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ethnicminorities/resources/PriorityReviewSept06.pdf 5 Gillborn, D and Drew, D (2010) “Academy Exclusions”, Runnymede Bulletin, Summer edition 2010. pp. 12 – 13 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35298622/Runnymede-Bulletin-Summer-2010-Final 6 Gillborn & Drew, ibid 7 Parsons, C (2009) Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books 8 Conservative Party (2008) "Giving Power Back to Teachers". London: Conservative Party, p. 2 http://www.scribd.com/doc/19023021/Giving-Power-Back-to-Teachers 243

on exclusions decisions, particularly given the massive impact such decisions can have on a child’s future.

2. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

2.1 Seeking the involvement of parents in the management of a child’s behaviour at school is important but should occur in such a way as to reinforce the positive nature of the relationship between home and school, rather than the punitive approach that featured heavily in the previous Government’s policy responses to parenting. For example, the Education and Inspections Act 2006 introduced the use of penalty orders, to be used against a parent when their excluded child was found in a public place during the first 5 days of an exclusion.

2.2 In a consultation response to the 2008 guidance on Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referral units, we noted our concern that this policy would have far reaching implications for working lone parent families, and as a result, also for those from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds given that 59% of Black Caribbean, 44% of Black African children and 61% of children in Mixed households9 grow up in single parent families,10 whilst the overall proportion of children in the UK living with a lone parent is 22%.

2.3 These parents will have to make arrangements with their employers in order to be at home to monitor their child’s movements, which may not be welcomed should these requests occur frequently, hence placing their employment at risk. The impact therefore upon specific groups will clearly be disproportionate.

2.4 We therefore remain concerned that this particular policy approach will impact disproportionately upon Black Caribbean groups, and/or those on low incomes, and that it is not likely to assist in attempts to engage the parents of those children who currently experience disproportionate school exclusions.

3. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour;

9 Labour Force Survey (2002) http://www.nso.gov.mt/statdoc/document_view.aspx?id=592 10 Select Committee on Home Affairs (2007) Second Report, http://www.parliament.the-stationery- office.com/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18106.htm#a22 244

3.1 Research suggests that there is a gap in our knowledge generally about the ethnic make up of onsite units, the length of time that students are placed within them and the educational support received by students once there.11 We have ourselves commented elsewhere that it is necessary that data collected on the make-up of pupils currently placed in pupil referral units and other methods of alternative provision, clearly include information on ethnic background, together with other indicators12.

3.2 Knowing how alternative provision is used, particularly in those units housed on school premises specifically for this purpose, is immensely important, given that these latter units are to be used only temporarily and not for extended periods of time. Given that we do not know how long pupils are spending within this provision, as this data is not uniformly collected, it is clearly difficult to be able to comment on their efficacy. In our view, this requires urgent attention if there is to occur full support for positive behaviour in schools.

4. The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July.

4.1 As Runnymede have argued elsewhere, institutions are required by law to assess the impact of their policies upon individuals from different ethnic backgrounds under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2002), and will still be required to do this when the Equality Act comes into force in October this year. Given this legal requirement, if increased powers to search pupils and introduce detention without notice were introduced, careful monitoring of those in receipt of these punishments must take place13.

11 Val Gillies (2010) “Behavioural Support Units: Excluded but Included” discussion paper presented at Are We Getting It Right Yet, Runnymede e-conference, 8 February, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/events-conferences/econferences/econference/excluded-but-included.html 12Sheikh, S & Berkeley, R (2007) Runnymede Consultation Response to Back On Track: A Strategy for Modernising Alternative Provision for Young People, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/policyResponses/BackOnTrack-ConsultationResponse.pdf

13 K. Sveinsson (2007) Response to the Draft Guidance for School Staff: Screening or Searching pupils for weapons, The Runnymede Trust, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/policyResponses/ScreeningOrSearchingPupilsForWeapons.pdf 245

4.2 In addition, if Black pupils are searched more than other pupils or feel unfairly targeted, trust may be undermined, potentially leading to more negative behaviour in the classroom14.

4.3 We are extremely concerned about proposals to remove the requirement for written notice of detention outside school hours. Given the safety concerns of parents for the whereabouts of their children, particularly if their children are at risk due to where they live and the nature of their journey from home to school, it is essential that the school gives notice to a parent if their child is to remain at school outside school hours. In addition, it is our view that this is in direct opposition to the current insistence that parents of excluded children must account for their whereabouts in the first 5 days of an exclusion. It is only fair that parents be kept up to date by the school on their child’s whereabouts in return.

5. Recommendations

5.1 That a movement towards zero permanent exclusion schools be undertaken, given the impact that these sanctions have both on the child, and on the additional services (ie. criminal justice system, social services) that may need to become involved with these young people over their lifetimes.

5.2 That in view of the above, an assessment of the strategies employed by non or low excluding schools and local authorities be made by Government with a move to drawing on and sharing good practice across other educational institutions

5.3 That the rate of exclusions of Black pupils within Academy status schools (currently standing at 3.6 times that of White pupils in state maintained schools) be monitored, specifically given the move by Government to rapidly increase the numbers of such schools.

5.4 That the Government re-assess any provisional plans to abolish Independent Appeals Panels, given that almost 90% of all exclusions take place without a subsequent appeal and only 2% of permanent exclusions are overturned via this method. More importantly, the possibility of a child being wrongly accused and the necessity of holding schools and head teachers to account,

14 Sveinsson, ibid 246

renders these appeals an essential part of the behaviour and discipline process.

5.5 That the Government review the use of penalty orders on a parent relating to the whereabouts of a child excluded for less than 6 days, given its disproportionate impact on lone parents and those on low incomes.

5.6 That clear recommendations to schools as to the monitoring of use of alternative onsite behaviour units be made, specifically in relation to frequency of use, ethnic background of pupils placed within them, length of time spent within units and educational support given to those within them

5.7 That careful monitoring of those in receipt of specific sanctions, such as pupils subject to searches by teaching staff, be made, and a re-assessment of the introduction of detention without notice occur.

September 2010

247

Memorandum submitted by Marlborough Family Education Service

1. Undiagnosed and untreated mental health problems of children or their parents have a strong negative impact on the child, their peers and teachers. The resultant behaviours in the school context impact on the experience of the whole learning community.

2. Many families will not engage with Mental Health professionals for a variety of reasons including the universal fear of blame and stigma associated with the diagnosis of a mental health problem. In many cases, schools are left to deal with the behavioural consequences unsupported.

3. In 1999, The Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in Great Britain a survey carried out by the Department of Health, Social Survey Division indicated that 10% of children 5-15 years had a mental disorder; 5% had clinically significant conduct disorders; 4% were assessed to have emotional disorders-anxiety and depression- and 1% were rated as hyperactive. Furthermore, 1 in 5 children had officially recognized special educational needs. Those with a disorder were 3 times more likely to have special needs: 49% compared with 15%. Children with conduct disorder had the highest rate of truancy at 44%. Children with mental disorders were far more likely to live in families rated as having unhealthy functioning compared to children with no disorder. Over 50% had experienced the separation of their parents.

4. Teaching and support staff in schools routinely have to deal with the effects of the disruption in the classroom occasioned by such disorders. They are usually provided with little training in the identification and management of children with mental health difficulties and receive little or no supervision. In a published report, Identification and Management of pupils with Mental Health difficulties (NASUWT 2010), the following observations were made based on reports from teachers:

i) Teachers are often ambivalent about their ability to deal with students with mental health difficulties and would like to have a named healthcare professional who they can contact for advice. This would work as an early recognition system for the health service to identify young people who may need help, thereby supporting effective targeting of limited healthcare resources. ii) Teachers would like access to professional development courses that focus on signs and symptoms. Some teachers felt that “in- class” support from a healthcare professional working alongside the teacher to give advice may be the most effective form of training. iii) Teachers expressed the desire for Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to be in schools to deal directly with school referrals. There is dissatisfaction with slow and bureaucratic systems of referral. 248

In our experience, school staff see existing services as remote and inaccessible with limited understanding of the pressures teachers and other school staff face as a result of the above.

5. At the Marlborough Family Education Service provision has been developed over the past 25 years which addresses the above needs of both families and schools.

There are 2 main components of the service as it exists currently:

Marlborough Family Education Centre (MFEC)

Young people in schools who are at risk of permanent exclusion can be referred to an intensive programme delivered away from the school site at the Marlborough Family Service. They attend with a parent or other adult from the family along with up to 9 other families and work together with a team of staff who are all trained teachers and systemic psychotherapists on the behaviours which are jeopardising their school placements and which may also be disrupting family life. The principle of ‘families helping families’ is well-established within the model and reduces the stigma many families experience in working with mental health services.

The programme is delivered in 8 week blocks with reviews at the end of each period. The reviews involve the young person and family, staff from the Education Centre, key school staff and other agencies, for example Social Services who may be involved in working with the family. School staff are involved in the programme on a day-to-day basis in reporting on the changes in the young person’s behaviour via a target card system. Full re-integration into mainstream education is the goal of the intervention.

All children referred to the Marlborough Family Education Centre are assessed by a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist within their 8-week placement. As Education Centre staff are part of a team which includes social workers, psychologists and child psychotherapists, families who attend the MFEC are also afforded easier access to these and related services should they be necessary.

As well as making use of planning, target-setting, daily feedback and regular review across agencies, the programme has developed the use of technologies to assist the process of change. Information technology and interactive whiteboards are used for presentation of material; digital technologies (both video and stills photography) is used regularly by both staff and families, in schools and in the home to provide other perspectives on the families’ experience of change. The Centre won the NHS Innovations Award 2008 in the mental health category for its work on the use of physiological feedback via heart rate 249

monitoring in measuring young people’s levels of arousal. This now forms a key part of the treatment at the Centre.

Case study

A child and his legal guardian had turned up late every day during the 3 weeks they had attended the Education Centre to the frustration of other families. A joint plan was created with the families to record their morning routine and their cycle journey to the Centre using a digital video camera to try to identify why. The next day the child and guardian bounced into the Centre on time. On review of the tape in the group the management of conflict within the family was established as the principal reason for the lateness. It was then possible to move to a discussion of new strategies to manage conflict and improve punctuality. Without the use of digital technology it would have taken much longer for this information to emerge.

Early Intervention

A team of 8 Early Intervention Workers (EIW) deliver mental health services directly in schools. The team comprises members with a range of professional backgrounds: teaching, family therapy, clinical psychology, psychiatric nursing, art therapy. Each school in Westminster can call on a named team member.

EIWs work alongside school staff in the identification of mental health difficulties in young people in schools. Treatment is also delivered in school through:

i) Family Groups: the EIW and a named member of the school staff jointly convene a weekly session for referred young people and parents. Specific behavioural targets are devised collaboratively between the parents, teachers, other professionals and the child so that a focused intervention can be created that is relevant and useful to all parties. Progress is reviewed weekly in the group and every six weeks with other professionals. The location in school enables families to engage more easily with mental health services. It also allows them to acknowledge the link between emotional well-being and their children’s learning. Working in group settings increases the number of families who gain access to services and improves cost-effectiveness. ii) Individual family work with young people and their parents. This takes place independently of, and sometimes as a precursor to joining a Family Group.

The role of the EIW is central to a family’s access to more intensive or specialist mental health services and referrals to the MFEC are made through this channel as well as those to psychiatry or child 250

psychotherapy. The EIW also plays a bridging role when a young person returns to school. Membership of a Family Group acts as a support in the process of re-integration into mainstream education.

Close collaboration between school staff and EIWs has enabled the development of a body of mental health awareness and expertise in schools. Staff feel more confident in the identification and management, with support, of mental health difficulties displayed by young people in schools. Regular training courses and consultation and supervision groups delivered by EIWs to school staff have consolidated this.

Case study

The Special Needs Co-ordinator in school made a referral for Katja and her son Wilaf aged 11. Wilaf was experiencing ongoing difficulties in making friends in school. Disputes were increasingly ending up in violence. Katja was resistant at first to involvement with mental health services but agreed to meet with the school’s EIW. A series of meetings was arranged as a result of her growing ease with the process. She disclosed in time that she was suffering increasing difficulties in managing Wilaf at home. He would fly into rages and was physically challenging to her. She admitted she was frightened that in time he would assault her. Some improvements took place in their relationship but Katja remained convinced that there was something seriously mentally wrong with Wilaf. The EIW arranged a prompt child psychiatry appointment for them which did not lead to a diagnosis of Wilaf’s mental illness. This helped Katja locate the difficulties in the relationship between them. Family work continued in school with Katja assuming more of the responsibility for change. Wilaf has since made a successful transfer to secondary school.

6. A number of key themes have repeatedly presented themselves during the period of developing our service over the past 25 years. Some of these correspond with key themes identified in the Department of Health publication New Horizons: Towards a shared vision for mental health (2009) and bear repeating. In the development of a strategy to effectively manage behaviour and discipline in schools and to enlist the support and co-operation of mental health services in achieving this:

i) Services must be accessible and prompt in their response. ii) Efforts should be made to reduce the stigma young people and families experience as a result of involvement with mental health services. iii) The importance of agencies working together must be stressed. iv) Value for money is paramount. 251

v) Preventative work and early intervention should be seen as money-saving in the long-run. vi) Services should champion innovative practice. vii) Schools should be able to use services which are flexible and can be tailored to their specific needs.

September 2010

252

Memorandum submitted by I CAN

1 . Executive Summary

1.1. I CAN, the children’s communication charity, welcomes the opportunity to feed into the Committee’s inquiry into Behaviour and Discipline. Our evidence demonstrates the strong link between emotional and behavioural difficulties and poor communication skills. From our experience however, Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN) often go undetected in children and young people with behavioural difficulties, resulting in further social exclusion. I CAN believes that more needs to be done to ensure early identification of SLCN as well as positive intervention for these vulnerable children. In this submission we have used our experience to highlight the following areas:

The strong correlation between children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties and children who have SLCN. The need to ensure that SLCN does not go undetected in children with behavioural difficulties. The key role that identifying and addressing communication needs can play in supporting positive behaviour. The need for tools to aid in the identification of SLCN in both mainstream and specialist settings. To ensure the provision of specialist help including clear methods for referral to a specialist provider.

2. About I CAN

2.1. I CAN is the children’s communication charity. We work to develop speech, language and communication skills for all children, with a particular focus on children who have Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN). I CAN works to ensure all people who have a responsibility to children, from parents and teachers to policy makers, understand the importance of good communication skills. We do this through:

• Direct service provision through two schools for children with severe and complex speech, language and communication needs (SLCN), and a network of early years centres • Consultancy and outreach services through I CAN’s Early Talk and Primary Talk programmes, and our Communication Skills Centres • Information, training, support and online resources for children, families and professionals • Raising awareness through campaigns such as Make Chatter Matter

2.2. I CAN uses its expertise from working directly with children with SLCN to develop information packages, training and programmes to develop the communication skills of all children and young people. I CAN is delighted that the issue of children’s speech, language and communication has risen up the political agenda significantly over the last few years. Our Make Chatter Matter campaign has engaged support from a range of Parliamentarians from all sides of the political divide and has spearheaded a shift in Government priority for the issue. Make Chatter Matter has been underpinned by I

253

CAN’s ‘Cost to the Nation’1 report which set out the evidence base for the scale of the issue.

3. Background to Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN)

3.1. I CAN believes that the best way to support positive behaviour is to identify and address the underlying communication difficulties that very many pupils with special educational needs have.

3.2. Speech language and communication skills are the basis for other key life skills: learning, literacy, positive relationships and regulation of behaviour and emotions2. Speaking and listening skills underpin pupil outcomes; young people with good communication skills have a wider range of life chances3.

3.3. In some parts of the UK – particularly areas of social disadvantage, upwards of 50% of children are starting school with SLCN4. Many have poor language skills which are inadequate for the start of formal learning, but with the right support may catch up with their peers. However, some of these children have more complex or persistent SLCN. Based on information from prevalence studies5 6, and from schools census data7, we can estimate that all together this may be around 10%8 of all children and young people.

3.4. Those with unaddressed, speech language and communication needs are at risk of problems with literacy, numeracy and learning9. They are less likely to leave school with qualifications10 or job prospects and are in danger of becoming NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training at 16-18), as are young people who have spent time in alternative provision11. SLCN can also lead to difficulties with social relationships and behaviour. Speech, language and communication needs are strongly associated with mental health problems as well as other social emotional and behavioural difficulties12. We also know that children excluded from school are likely to have special educational needs, including a high incidence of communication difficulties13. People with speech and language needs are significantly over- represented in the young offender and prison populations14. In addition to this, limited

1 Available on our website at http://www.ican.org.uk/upload2/chatter%20matter%20update/mcm%20report%20final.pdf 2 Silva P, Williams S & McGee R, (1987): A Longitudinal Study of Children with Developmental Delay at age three years; later intellectual, reading and behaviour problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 630 – 640 3 Improving Achievement in English Language in Primary and Secondary Schools (2003) HMIE 4 Locke, A. Ginsborg, J and Peers, I (2002) Development and Disadvantage: Implications for Early Years IJLCD Vol 27 No 1 5 Tomblin J B et al (1997) Prevalence of Specific Language Impairment in Kindergarten children Journal of speech, Language and Hearing Research 40 in Lindsay G and Dockrell J with Mackie C and Becky Letchford (2002) Educational Provision for Children with Specific Speech and Language Difficulties in Engand and Wales CEDAR 6 Law J. Boyle J. Harris F. Harkness A. and Nye C. (2000) Prevalence and Natural History of Primary Speech and Language Delay: findings from a systematic review of the literature IJLCD Vol 35 no.2 7 DfES (2006) National Statistics First Release 8 see I CAN prevalence calculations and Law et al (2000) Provision for children’s speech and language needs in England and Wales: facilitating communication between education and health services DfES research report 239 9 Stothard et al 1998 and Communication Disability and Literacy Difficulties I CAN Talk (2006) 10 Snowling MJ, Adams J, Bishop DVM, and Stothard SE (2001) Educational Attainments of School Leaver with a Pre- school History of Speech-Language Impairments IJLCD Vol 36 11 I CAN Talk Series 4 Language and Social Exclusion. http://www.ican.org.uk/upload2/publications/language%20and%20social%20exclusion%20report.pdf 12 Toppelberg C O, Shapiro T (2000), Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143-152 13 Ripley, K. Yuill, N. (2005) Patterns of language impairment and behaviour in boys excluded from school. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 75(1):37-50, 14 Snow, P.C. & Powell, M.B. (2005). What's the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime and Law 11(3) 239-253.

254

language skills make it difficult for young people to access support or understand interventions.15

4. The Relationship between Speech, Language and Communication Needs and Behavioural Difficulties

4.1. I CAN is concerned by the evidence that young people with social emotional and behavioural difficulties 16 are at risk of undetected communication problems.17

4.2. There is evidence of a high incidence of communication difficulty (often unidentified) in those who are young offenders18 19, looked after children20 and those who have conduct disorder21 as well as other social emotional and behavioural difficulties22. It is estimated that between 60% - 90% of these vulnerable young people have undetected communication difficulties. We also know that children excluded from school are likely to have special educational needs, including a high incidence of communication difficulties23 . Again, poor language skills make it difficult for young people to access support or understand interventions.

4.3. I CAN believes there is a clear link between poor behaviour and poor communication skills. A recent study from the University of Sheffield concluded that ‘for a high proportion of secondary age pupils at risk of permanent school exclusion, language difficulties are a factor in their behaviour problems and school exclusion.24’

4.4. We believe that the key is to identify accurately the underlying difficulties that give rise to poor behaviour so that positive and developmental strategies can be put in place in advance.

4.5. We also know that these underlying language difficulties often go undiagnosed.

5. Next Steps

14 Bryan K Freer J; Furlong C Language and communication difficulties in juvenile offenders (2007) International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42 2 15 Snow, P. & Powell, M. (2004). Interviewing juvenile offenders: The importance of oral language competence. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 16(2), 220-225. 16 Heneker, S. (2005) Speech and language therapy support for pupils with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) – a pilot project British Journal of Special Education 32 2 p.86 17 Cohen, N.J. Barwick, M. A. Horodezky, N.B. Vallance, D. D. and Im, N. (1998). 'Language, Achievement, and Cognitive Processing in Psychiatrically Disturbed Children with Previously Identified and Unsuspected language Impairments'. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 39, 6, 865-877. 18 Bryan, K. 2004. Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 391-400.

19 Snow PC, Powell MB (2007) Oral Language Competence, Social Skills and High-risk Boys: What are Juvenile Offenders Trying to Tell us? Children & Society (OnlineEarly Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2006.00076.x 20 Cross, M. Lost for words. (1999) Child and Family Social Work 4(3): 249-57

21 Gilmour, J; Hill, B; Place, M. Skuse, D. H. (2004) Social communication deficits in conduct disorder: a clinical and community survey Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 45(5):967-978 22 Toppelberg C O, Shapiro T (2000), Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143-152 23 Ripley, K. Yuill, N. (2005) Patterns of language impairment and behaviour in boys excluded from school. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 75(1):37-50

24 Clegg, Finch, Murphy, Nicholls and Stackhouse (2009), Language abilities of secondary age pupils at risk of school exclusion: A preliminary report. Journal of Child Language Teaching and Therapy 25: 123-139

255

5.1. In our view there are a number of actions that should be taken to address this which I CAN is able to help deliver:

• Tools to help staff identify and assess speech language and communication needs (SLCN) in both special and mainstream settings to help identify areas for development. • Clear triggers for referral for specialist help with SLCN. • The provision of that specialist help. • Advice on how speech and language therapists forming part of the multi disciplinary team that works effectively with children and young people. • Workforce development with particular focus on the links between behaviour, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) and SLCN, stressing the connection between language and social exclusion.

5.2. In both of our own special schools for children and young people with complex SLCN (Dawn House School in Nottinghamshire age range 6-19 and Meath School in Surrey for primary age children), there is exemplary practice in how to support positive behaviour. This includes:

• In the classroom, helping the learners identify and express their barriers to learning so that their needs are met rather than them ‘behaving badly’. This is done through thorough assessment, skilled teaching and a multi disciplinary approach of teachers and speech and language therapists working together. • In the school more widely through a language enriching environment, active student councils and outstanding care and guidance in time outside lessons. • Working with parents so that strategies used to manage behaviour at school are understood and consistently applied at home.

September 2010

256

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers

1. ATL – leading education union ATL represents teachers, support staff, lecturers and leaders. We believe that teachers as professionals must be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement, at the level of the individual pupil and in articulating the role of education in facilitating social justice. Schools should be supported to work collaboratively to offer excellent teaching and learning, and to support pupils’ well-being, across a local area. Accountability mechanisms should be developed so that there is a proper balance of accountability to national government, parents and the local community, which supports collaboration rather than competition.

2. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools Despite much negative coverage in the media, 66% of respondents in a recent ATL member1 survey found that positive behaviour is supported and reinforced effectively in their schools. Based on our members’ experiences, we outline the key factors vital for this support.

3. Strong Leadership As with any initiative or activity in schools, the support of a strong leadership team is key to success. This strong leadership must translate into active support for school staff in terms of: i) having clear and concise guidelines on behaviour for all pupils, and an insistence on their being consistently applied, ii) having similarly clear and concise guidelines on classroom/behaviour management for all staff with appropriate support structures in place, iii) ensuring that staff have appropriate peer or leadership support in relation to their practice around behaviour management, eg. mentoring, training, and iv) having a belief in teacher professionalism which supports teacher flexibility to deviate from prescribed practices in order to meet the needs of their pupils, where necessary.

4. Whole-school behaviour policy A consistent factor in promoting positive behaviour in schools is a whole-school behaviour policy, with expectations throughout the school team, at all levels, that it be consistently applied. Member experience observes that for this policy to be effective, it needs to be backed up with behaviour management plans and risk assessments for

1 Behaviour, Discipline and Attendance: ATL Member Survey, Autumn 2010 257

persistent and challenging cases. Positive and proactive measures are emphasised with clear reward systems highlighted and where sanctions are necessary they are proportional, clear and effective. All measures must be consistently applied.

5. As staff turnover in schools may vary, it is important that school leadership ensures that all staff know and understand the policy, and that there are regular opportunities for training and review of practice in the light of the policy and vice versa, which includes all staff, short- or long-term. Consistency is vital and clear reporting and recording procedures play a key role in ensuring that it is achieved across all staff.

6. School culture and ethos The whole-school approach embraces the school culture, staff-pupil and pupil-pupil relationships and vigilance around group tensions and bullying. School behaviour policies need to include explicit references to specific forms of bullying, such as racist, sexual/sexist and homophobic bullying and again, should be backed by clear action plans (e.g. the use of homophobic language is not simply stopped, as part of behaviour policy, but also challenged with regard to underlying cultural assumptions).2

7. ATL’s members have also found that a positive ethos in the school of praise, responsibility, support and peer leadership supports and reinforces positive behaviour. This includes countering prejudicial and stereotypical assumptions about particular groups and having an inclusive ethos, promoting positive images of LGBT pupils, BME pupils (including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils). Schools use mentoring/buddying systems between pupils to combat bullying and ignorance and to ensure that difference is understood. Core values for all – staff and students – are embedded in everyday discussions, circle times and problem solving situations. The whole school knows the expectations, from the children to the teaching staff, support staff and midday supervisors.

8. Staff initial training and professional development It is not just important that staff know the school’s behaviour policy and work to demonstrate the values that underpin it; they need to understand child development and human behaviour in order that they can promote behaviours which enable classroom relationships to ensure learning and fulfilment of potential. There is no doubt that the current offer of initial and continuing professional training is not sufficient, leaving an understanding and knowledge gap. This is exacerbated by a similar lack of training about Special Educational Needs, needs, which if unidentified and unmet, can result in pupil

2 ‘Doing Gender’, ATL survey report on aspects of sex/gender identity and homophobia 258

disaffection and alienation from learning, often manifesting in challenging classroom behaviours. ATL’s excellent and oversubscribed Behaviour Management training course and related publications3 attempt to meet the professional need caused by this deficit but it is vital that a solution is developed at a broader systemic/structural level.

9. Support staff The use of teaching assistants has been invaluable in schools particularly where SLTs have been encouraging of their development, often into areas of behaviour and SEN. TAs have been vital in establishing strong and supportive relationships with pupils who find learning / social aspects of education difficult, in working with their families and also in working with other agencies.

10. Collaborations, including extended services Schools who have positive experiences of behaviour have often promoted close working relationships between their staff and other schools nearby, including the local PRU, and other professional agencies, eg education psychologist, social care and health professionals.4 They work with parents and the local community to help change potentially negative attitudes to education there. Many members feel that the existence of Sure Start has been very helpful, in making parents feel more involved in the school, tackling distrust and fear, helping parents understand better their own responsibilities and receive support to deal with any parenting challenges they face.

11. Systemic challenges High-stakes accountability and assessment system “Each year is started with good intentions but as pressure for results mounts the focus switches.” This quote from an ATL member encapsulates the tension between the current high-stakes testing systems and broader strategies of inclusion which underpin the most effective behaviour policies. We know from research5 that a focus on learning rather than performance yields excellent results, in terms of pupil engagement and behaviour and also on academic outcomes. However, under the current high-stakes system, under the heavy hand of Ofsted, many school leaders find it risky to change their strategy.

3 ‘Managing Classroom Behaviour’ ATL, Watkins (1997) and ‘Learning: A Sense-Maker’s Guide”, ATL, Watkins (2003) 4 ATL, Extended Services, position statement, March 2010 5 “Learning: a sense-maker’s guide”, Watkins, ATL, 2003 259

12. Funding for staff As funding in schools is becoming increasingly stretched, ATL is concerned about the impact on staffing levels. Any cut in teacher numbers will be disastrous as our existing teaching workforce is already stretched, teaching large classes and with excessive workloads. We are also concerned that any cuts in support staff numbers will have a massive impact on overall staff workload and on current positive strategies of behaviour management – in many schools, TAs are essential to offering dedicated support to individual pupils and their families, proactively tackling challenging classroom behaviours and supporting teaching.

13. Diversification of the school system ATL believes that the ever-growing diversification of the school system, and the move by many individual institutions away from the local authority structure will undercut behaviour and attendance partnerships and across-school working, despite such collaborations offering solutions around managed moves, staff mentoring and professional sharing of key information.

14. The nature and level of challenging behaviour and its impact Nature and level of challenging behaviour ATL members typically experience low-level disruption and lack of compliance with expectations/ rules. This kind of behaviour interferes with teaching and learning and causes stress on a daily basis.

15. A big challenge to school staff is also entrenched behaviour based on stereotypes and cultural prejudice i.e. homophobia and transphobia, Islamophobia, sexism and towards vulnerable groups such as those in care or with learning difficulties.

16. Verbal abuse of teachers, in terms of insults, threats and derogatory comments, is distressingly common: 51% of ATL members surveyed6 reported that they had experienced this. A significant proportion of ATL respondents also reported being subject to intimidation such as threats, shouting, being sworn at (38.6%) and physical aggression (28.5%). Violence is also a concern with 25.9% of ATL survey respondents experiencing violence directed at staff. In the main, violence by pupils is directed at other pupils, in the experience of 87.3% of respondents. These figures are important and concerning but it is vital that responses engage with individual incidences and causes, whilst ensuring that staff are protected and supported and future risks minimised.

6 Challenging Behaviour in Schools: ATL Member Survey, Spring 2010 260

17. Impact on staff The impact on staff who experience challenging classroom behaviour is huge. Members cite effects including chronic stress, depression, voice loss, loss of confidence, illness resulting in time off work, negative impact on home/family life. Many experience huge frustration in facing problems which are beyond the school’s capacity to change, or in facing challenges without good support from the senior leadership team. When these frustrations and negative effects become overwhelming, many lose their faith in the education system with the result that a significant proportion leave – 36.8% of our respondents considered changing profession because of poor behaviour by pupils.

18. Impact on school The impact at school-level of disengaged and challenging pupil behaviour is disruption of learning and the increasing disengagement of pupils. Staff absence increases as dealing with daily challenges takes its toll, and staff morale in general dips. The community of the school is undermined, and cohesion becomes more difficult to maintain. A supportive and pro-active senior leadership team with whole-school policies on behaviour which emphasise engagement of pupils can do much to minimise the negative impact on school, staff and pupils of any challenging behaviour that occurs.

19. Approaches to address challenging behaviour Schools and local authorities have built up a range of strategies to respond to challenging behaviour. The following are some of the approaches observed by members: Managed moves between schools – these have worked very well in some areas, based on collaboration between schools, support by the local authority, giving pupils another chance in a different environment.7 Increase of communication with parents – this is particularly effective where school staff have established supportive relationships with parents, often involving a team relationship with external services. These can include, where appropriate, contracts or agreements between parents/carers, students and senior staff. Dedicated inclusion teams with particular strategies eg: time out; key workers; groups which focus on communication skills, anger management etc; inclusion rooms; a ‘seclusion’ system; a behaviour card system; and restorative justice. Where removal from lessons seems to be required, it can be replaced with a part-time timetable in secure personalised learning centre/behaviour unit on-site.

7 ‘Managed Moves’, Abdelnoor, Gulbenkian Foundation (2008) & ‘Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School, Parsons (2009) 261

Positive strategies such as nurture groups. Also, mentoring by older pupils. Zero tolerance approaches to unacceptable behaviours. Use of sanctions such as removal of privileges. Also, fixed-term exclusions. Differentiated policy in relation to need, eg SEN.

20. Engaging parents and carers Our members report that building relationships with parents is a key way of engaging them positively in managing their children’s behaviour. Some schools have a dedicated staff member for parent- community relations which has achieved much in this area, particularly reaching parents who have been previously difficult to engage; some offer parenting classes. Early involvement of parents, clear communication of difficulties and consequences and behaviour agreements (some do this in the form of ‘contracts’) are very effective. There needs to be a basis of regular communication with parents for ‘good’ as well as ‘bad’ reasons. Tools such as the Individual Education Plan (IEP) are also useful. Extended services can play a key role in this; it is vital that school staff liaise with specialists outside the school, highlighting specialist support to parents, ie around domestic violence, LGBT equality etc.

21. Difficulties: Evidence/information plays a vital role in these relationships and this can be undermined by insufficient logging of incidents. This will be further damaged by the currently considered abolition of duty to record and report bullying incidents and racist incidents. Staff can be vulnerable to pupils/parents making allegations against them, as a form of defence – logging of incidents helps to defuse these allegations earlier.

22. Some parents distrust or fear institutions such as schools, and indeed the supportive extended services around them. This is very challenging for schools and LAs to overcome. These fears and resentments are often reinforced by deprivation and socioeconomic inequalities. Time- and staff-intensive interventions including a dedicated Parent Liaison worker are needed to meet this level of need.

23. Some schools and areas face the challenge of a geographically dispersed parent body where communication with parents is stymied by distance. Email, phone and notes via student bag/book methods can be effective but are limited, particularly when sensitivity of issue dictates a face-to-face approach. Where language can be a barrier, it is vital that there are language support services available and indeed, access for families to EAL services.

262

24. A significant proportion of parents feel unable or disinclined to set boundaries for their children. In some cases, it reflects a lack of confidence or knowledge, needs which can be met with early parenting interventions like Sure Start. There are parents who present strongly challenging behaviour themselves, being aggressive towards the school and in some cases, their children. In these cases, it is vital that schools use extended services and proactive approaches.

25. Special educational needs SEN can best be recognised in schools’ behaviour and discipline policies through an underpinning broad inclusion policy and an openness to a broad range of interventions, according to pupil need and situation. This kind of broad strategy emphasises early identification of SEN, recognises different needs and therefore affords flexible options for staff to use ie pupils with special learning/ behavioural needs being able to spend time in the Learning Suite, TA support, one-to-one tuition, individualised/differentiated learning, behaviour support plans.

26. It is vital that schools have expertise and experience in SEN; many use a Learning Support Worker/Team to ensure the identification of, and organisation of support for, special needs of pupils. Staff need to be given access to this SEN expertise, whether through internal/external CPD, mentoring by the SENCO, peer support. Schools need to link with external agencies to have access to expertise and to support their SEN provision.

27. Current challenges SEN can be seen as an add-on, with behaviour management policies not allowing for differentiation. This can be exacerbated by inadequate internal communication with SEN dept; members report cases where support staff are given little input and information on current behaviour or SEN policies. There is a lack of general workforce knowledge of specific SEN issues, leaving them ill-prepared to encounter/identify the related needs.

28. Funding is perceived to be an issue in the lack/delay of statements for pupils with SEN with the potential conflict of interest represented by the funding body as provider of statements. However, it is vital that alternative options being considered take into account factors such as the current shortage of education psychologists.

29. Alternative provision Currently, alternative provision is patchy in terms of access and quality across the country. Members observe that getting access can be slow and difficult, even impossible. Where alternative provision settings have worked well, members have strongly praised services they offer pupils, such as skills centres, and outreach services which are helpful 263

in building up support for those pupils. They are seen as being very effective with behaviour management, and many members are fearful for the future of these centres in relation to funding cuts as they feel that they offer a vital opportunity for pupils who have struggled with mainstream education.

30. Re-integration into the mainstream school environment is an area of concern for our members – it is vital that there is good communication between the school and the alternative provision setting so that there is a clear strategy to prevent a recurrence of previous issues.

31. Members report that managed moves, if supported by parents, have worked well for many pupils, providing the opportunity for a fresh start within mainstream education, without the stigma of permanent exclusion.

32. Links between attendance and behaviour As with behaviour, strong leadership and a flexible curriculum has impact on attendance in schools as observed by Ofsted in 20078. Non- attendance is a challenging behaviour and as with classroom disruption, it can be an expression of alienation and disengagement with school, learning and the curriculum. It can also be an expression of broader socioeconomic issues, chaotic home lives or pressures on children as carers. As with behaviour, it requires understanding of individual cases and individualised responses.

33. Government’s proposals ATL members expressed concern about the impact of Government proposals on relationships with pupils and parents, for example:

34. Powers to search There are already powers to search for teachers; extending and continuing to emphasise these powers undermines teachers’ role as educators, putting them increasingly into a policing role. Members feel that these risk alienating pupils and parents, perhaps even resulting in civil claims and could precipitate challenge and confrontation with a negative impact on learning. Some members observed that these measures are suitable to schools as ‘grade-factories’ but are debatable if schools’ function is also to shape “well-rounded individuals”. Any powers to search must be accompanied by clear guidance with the aim of protecting staff and pupils alike.

35. Detentions notice requirements ATL members believe that this will be detrimental to relationships with some parents who, without notice, will not know where their children are, giving them cause for a reasonable complaint against the school.

8 ‘Attendance in Secondary Schools’, Ofsted Report (2007) 264

It also raises concerns where pupils need school transport and there are no alternative transport options available. While it can make detention more efficient by the fact of its immediacy, our members are unsure that this advantage outweighs the disadvantages noted above. They observe that lunchtime detentions can be as effective and not as problematic. They also state that the use of any such sanctions should be included in regular communication with parents.

36. Conclusion ATL members are clear that while challenging pupil behaviour is a significant issue in schools, there are positive developments that engage pupils in learning, minimizing disruption and providing support for staff in recognising pupil needs. Many of these developments come out of strong leadership, collaborative across-school working, local authority support and extended services. These are vital to continuing success in meeting the challenge as is a shift of emphasis away from the current narrow-target and high-stakes accountability system.

September 2010 ______

References

‘Behaviour, Discipline and Attendance: ATL member survey’, Autumn 2010 ‘Doing Gender’: ATL survey report on aspects of sex/gender identity and homophobia, July 2007 ‘Managing Classroom Behaviour’, Watkins, ATL, 1997 ‘Learning: A Sense-Maker’s Guide’, Watkins, ATL, 2003 ‘Extended Services’, ATL Position Statement, March 2010 ‘Achievement for All’, ATL, 2002 ‘Challenging behaviour in schools: ATL member survey’, Spring 2010 ‘Managed Moves’, Abdelnoor, Gulbenkian Foundation, 2008 ‘Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School’, Parsons, 2009 ‘Recording and reporting incidents of bullying between pupils, and incidents of abuse against school staff’, ATL, March 2010 ‘Attendance in Secondary Schools’, Ofsted, 2007

265

Memorandum submitted by The Association of Education Psychologists

The Association of Educational Psychologists and educational psychology The Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP) is the professional association and trade union for educational psychologists (EPs). It is the only organisation in the UK run exclusively for and by EPs, representing around 90% of the professional work force. The AEP seeks to promote the overall well‐ being of children and young people, represents the collective interests of its members, promotes cooperation between EPs, and seeks to establish good relationships between EPs and their employers. The AEP currently has 3250 members across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Educational psychology is a key frontline education service that underpins the understanding of how pupils develop and learn. Many practicising educational psychologists undertake doctoral study as part of their continuing professional development and three year doctoral level initial training has been developed for all new entrants to the profession. EPs work with children and young people aged from 0‐ 19 but the majority of their time is spent with school‐aged children.

Executive Summary The AEP’s membership works on a daily basis across a range of educational settings that include schools, early years, Pupil Referral Units and within multi‐disciplinary settings with close colleagues from the NHS and Children’s Social Care. As such, EPs are uniquely placed to ensure consistency and continuity when managing challenging behavior, which is the bedrock of any effective behaviour or discipline policy.

In this response, the AEP will focus on the role, associated benefits, and additional resources that educational psychologists can provide to schools in order to effectively manage challenging behaviour and discipline. EPs play a key part in helping shape how educational settings approach a vast range of educational issues training in child development, curriculum development and special educational needs, all of which impact on schools’ abilities to manage behaviour.

However, despite these benefits, the impact of EPs is being undermined by the lack of resources on the frontline. This is attributable in part to a lack of understanding about the range of work across educational settings that EPs perform, and the unclear and unsustainable funding mechanisms for trainees that translate as a result. This is leading to a shortfall of trained EPs able to undertake statutory work, and equally important preventative work that has a real impact on children’s outcomes, especially in areas such as behaviour management.

The AEP recommends that the Department for Education strongly addresses these areas of concern by reviewing the current training arrangements for EPs and how they are funded. Crucially, this would not require any increase in funding budgets.

Behaviour and Discipline in Schools The AEP noted with interest that this inquiry will look at the strategies that schools have in place to manage both positive and challenging behaviour, and how to identify the root causes of challenging 266

behaviour; inviting views from the professional children’s workforce to share examples of best practice and offer recommendations. As such, we would like to comment on what steps the Government should take to maximise the input of EPs, who as a key part of the children’s workforce whose skills are currently under utilised, can make effective interventions towards improving behaviour and discipline in schools.

We would in particular like to comment on the following aspects of the inquiry:

¾ How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

(1) All children and young people, particularly those within vulnerable circumstances, need access to a range of well trained and highly skilled professionals who can recognise, manage and support their individual needs. This is especially important for those children with disabilities or complex special educational needs, as they often move between settings.

(2) EPs work on a daily basis across a range of educational settings that include schools, early years, Pupil Referral Units and within multi‐disciplinary settings with close colleagues from the NHS and Children’s Social Care. As such, they are uniquely placed to ensure consistency and continuity when managing challenging behavior, which is the bedrock of any effective behaviour or discipline policy.

(3) An AEP investigation in 2008 found that the EP’s role was often different across the country, indicating their ability to respond to local need. EPs work across the full range of educational settings and are well positioned in Local Authorities to identify and analyse trends across localities and implement strategies to address local need accordingly.

(4) EPs are a highly skilled section of the children’s workforce, who are trained in applied scientific methods, diagnostic and assessment skills, and have a thorough understanding of child development. As such, an EP’s skills are most effective when used to identify children who cause concern early on and implement preventative strategies, rather than through, what is very often, reactive statutory assessment work.

(5) A school’s approach towards managing behaviour and discipline should develop from a sound understanding of child development and an awareness of the root emotional, wellbeing or social causes that precipitate challenging behaviour. EPs are ideally placed to raise a school’s capacity to share best practice and provide support to teachers based on these principles.

(6) The AEP is concerned by the level of knowledge and training in basic child development held by mainstream elements of the children’s workforce. The AEP has found that EPs are often told by teachers that the pupils they are expected to teach now would not have been in school five to ten years ago. The expectations on teachers, especially in secondary settings, do not seem to be matched by effective training. 267

(7) EPs are vital in ensuring that the principles of child development are recognised in schools’ strategies for all children, but especially those with generalised and complex special educational needs. The root causes of behavioural difficulties among these vulnerable groups are often developmental and behavioural assessment is more effective if understood in terms of an individual child’s needs.

(8) The most effective behaviour interventions are those that are taken at a systemic level via a whole school approach, involving teachers, parents and the pupils themselves, in order to improve problematic elements of a school’s ethos/culture and to promote the emotional wellbeing of the entire school. It is essential that senior management teams in schools communicate behaviour policies to all staff members and ensure that its principles are adhered to at all times.

(9) Schools should move the focus away from individual referrals around behaviour, and be challenged to look at their practice as a whole. Such systemic approaches on a preventative scale are more effective than reactive individualised casework. This not only helps to support teachers and pupils in dealing with and reacting to challenging behaviour, but it also creates a healthy school environment that prevents such behaviour developing to levels when the most serious interventions are required.

(10)EPs play an integral role in helping schools to adopt such a holistic approach towards behaviour management. By working as part of multi disciplinary teams and in close liaison with other elements of the children’s workforce, EPs ensure a continuous and consistent multi‐agency approach when dealing with vulnerable children across the range of educational and care settings.

(11)From their knowledge of child development, EPs are also essential in delivering in‐house training to build the capacity of the workforce to recognise and address the causes of challenging behaviour. This can include conducting and providing feed back on classroom observations, designing and running INSET across the workforce and setting up training workshops. As a result teachers become able to identify and mitigate the effects of potentially problematic situations more readily. Training should also focus on how certain adult behaviours can trigger challenging behaviours. Initiatives such as learning and reflection groups can cement this awareness.

(12) Basing teacher training and behavioural management on an understanding of child development not only provides teachers with strategies to deal more confidently and appropriately with individualised instances of challenging behaviour but more importantly it prevents escalation to a level when physical intervention becomes necessary.

(13)Schools should not just have in place measures to penalise bad behaviour. School strategy should be refocused to build resilience, reduce risk and promote emotional wellbeing. Guidelines should outline how teachers themselves can consistently model positive behaviour to reinforce and reward good behaviour. Personal assessment of work, individual appraisal and 268

peer support all contribute towards pupils developing an intrinsic sense of responsibility and ownership of their behaviour. This also helps to reinforce and address the link between behaviour and learning outcomes, which although related is often addressed by schools as separate concerns.

(14)Schools should develop positive management strategies, which train teachers to manage classrooms in a proactive manner. A key element of this approach is positive feedback and to acknowledge appropriate behaviour when it occurs. It is important that disruptive behaviour is not condoned, but dealt with in a graduated way. Pupils who fail to respond to directions should never be ignored, but caught early. Teachers should redirect behaviour by acknowledging the appropriate behaviour of pupils around them and giving clear choices as to what will happen if they continue not to do as they are told.

(15)These changes to teacher practice have been found by the AEP to reduce the number of fixed term exclusions and improve long term outcomes for all children and young people, although especially those who show signs of challenging behaviour.

(16)Despite the positive contribution that EPs can make towards helping schools to manage behaviour, supporting schools to avoid the most serious interventions and ensuring improved outcomes for the most vulnerable children, the AEP is concerned that this is undermined by a lack of EP resources delivering frontline services. The biggest challenge to supporting behaviour management in schools is a lack of time and capacity, which results in attempting to show teachers what strategies to employ, but without necessary time to follow up on advice.

(17)A lack of frontline capacity is in part caused by the unclear and uncertain arrangements that are in place to fund the training of EPs. All trainees receive a bursary to cover the first year of training, securing a paid placement in their second and third years to complete their doctoral study. University fees and first year bursaries are currently paid through the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC), funded by voluntary annual subscriptions from Local Authorities.

(18)Local Authorities are allocated non‐ring‐fenced funding for EP training, and this money should be paid into the central pot administered by CWDC for this purpose. However, due to the voluntary nature of the system, and pressures on budgets, Local Authorities are increasingly reluctant to either pay their voluntary subscriptions or appoint trainee EPs.

(19)As with the training of other statutory front line service professionals, e.g. teachers and social workers, the joint training approach between employers and universities is crucial in order to ensure that training is linked to the very real needs of children, young people, schools and families. As guaranteed funding supports the training of other statutory front line children’s services professionals it seems anomalous that a similar system cannot be implemented for educational psychologists. 269

(20)This is precipitating a shortage of trained EPs who are able to carry out statutory work and equally crucial preventative interventions. This is an immediate problem that needs to be resolved urgently. Current figures from the CWDC indicated that approximately 33% of first year trainees only had their placements for September 2010 finalised in July and August. Additionally, the CWDC has announced that recruitment for the 2011 course is frozen. This not only affects those wanting to enrol, but those already in the training system, leaving them with no guarantees that training can be completed.

(21)It is crucial to note that no increase in funding is required to address this issue; rather funds that have always been intended to support the training of EPs are used for that purpose in an efficient manner. The previous funding model, which was to top‐slice all Local Authorities rather than seek voluntary contributions, provided for a steady uptake of training places.

(22)These developments threaten to restrict an EP’s work to statutory assessment and reactive casework. This reduces the capacity of staff to be involved in equally vital, but non‐statutory preventative work. This includes working with teachers and parents to manage behaviour and discipline, in spite of the demonstrable outcomes and expertise that EPs can deliver.

¾ Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

(23) The AEP has found that changes to a home environment often affect children’s behaviour in more ways than changes to a school environment, making the involvement of parents in managing a child’s challenging behaviour essential. Early intervention and identification when a child is young is equally important when involving parents and carers because intervention can occur when the child and parents have more changes to turn behaviour around and see results. However, this requires sensitive handling and mandating parents to attend parenting classes should not be viewed as the only available strategy to engage parents.

(24) Parents are less likely to support schools if they perceive that schools are being unfair to their child. Schools can negate this by having a clear set of values and procedures for dealing with challenging behaviour and discipline. If parents are aware that their child is rewarded for appropriate behaviour, it is more likely that they will support the school over matters of discipline. Initiatives such as use of parent letters, merit stars and personal appraisal can cement this approach.

(25) However, even more importantly, behaviour management strategies should incorporate the child’s perspective in order to work on targeting the reason for behaviour and addressing these points. This work is usually undertaken in consultation with a teacher who can then devise a strategy to deal with these difficulties. An EP is crucial in eliciting the child’s perspective and addressing the root causes of problematic behaviours.

¾ How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline 270

(26) The AEP has found that the consistency provided by adopting holistic, whole school approaches for behaviour and discipline will benefit all children, including those with SEN. However, school policies should at the same time take account of the individual child, their particular generalised or complex SEN needs and the root causes, often developmental, that trigger challenging behaviour.

(27) Nurture Groups, which are school‐based educational resources that try to meet the underlying needs of children who have not had the opportunity to develop the necessary skills to be successful learners, can also help to reintegrate children successfully into the mainstream classroom, while supporting their individual needs in a specialised setting.

(28) Typically, children participating in Nurture Groups have difficulties in accessing the curriculum within the mainstream classroom. A Nurture Group will always have a teacher and support assistant who work closely with between eight to ten children, meaning that the teachers can develop a close relationship with each child, anticipating difficulties, intervening quickly and tailoring their approach to each child’s particular needs. All children will spend some part of each day in their own mainstream classroom.

(29) Nurture Groups can also provide parents with a clear point of contact within the school to provide support and advice as well as follow up on the positive reinforcement that takes place in the educational setting.

(30) The benefits of Nurture Groups should be more widely communicated across schools and Local Authorities as they ensure close liaison and joint planning between class teachers and other members of the workforce who are responsible for the child’s needs in school and at home.

Recommendations:

In order for EPs to be able to contribute to improving the performance and ability of schools to manage challenging behavior, the Government should:

¾ look at how the children’s workforce can be trained appropriately in child development so as to better equip teachers with the skills and knowledge to identify and address the root causes of problematic and challenging behaviour

¾ encourage schools to adopt a holistic, consistent whole school approach towards behaviour and discipline that focuses on positive classroom management and acknowledges how behaviour is related to learning outcomes

¾ give direction to Local Authorities that educational psychology services should not only be available to all children but also parents and teachers, so that the children’s workforce can draw on the added resource offered by EPs to provide support and advice on how to identify causes of challenging behaviour correctly and implement strategies accordingly 271

¾ look at the voluntary and unsustainable funding of EPs and ensure that national funding is made available to train EPs and ensure there is no reduction in their current number.

September 2010 272

Memorandum submitted by NASUWT

• The NASUWT has considerable experience of dealing with behaviour and attendance issues in school through its casework. • The NASUWT has extensive experience of providing high quality guidance and resources for schools on managing pupil behaviour, including a joint leaflet with the former Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) on the rights and entitlements of classroom teachers with regard to pupil behaviour. • The Select Committee review of behaviour and discipline needs to recognise at the outset that schools are safe havens of calm and security and the vast majority of schools do not have serious or endemic behaviour issues. • Ofsted has shown that in a large majority of schools behaviour is managed effectively. • The problem of ‘low level disruption’ is a significant factor that blights learning, as highlighted by an NASUWT survey in March 2009 that found that, on average, teachers lost 30 minutes of teaching time each day as a result of low level disruption. • A major feature of schools that experience poor behaviour is the failure of school leadership to consistently support the professional expertise and judgement of classroom practitioners. • The review needs to recognise the effect that external influences have on a child’s behaviour within school and that schools working alone cannot solve all problems of poor behaviour and indiscipline. • Collaborative working between schools and other agencies is key to tackling problems of poor pupil behaviour. The decision to remove the requirement for Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships is a fundamentally retrograde development. • There are serious concerns about the likely effects of funding cuts upon behaviour support and special educational needs (SEN). 273

• An important factor for fostering good behaviour is through an engaging curriculum. The Government should consider this in the forthcoming curriculum review. • Low level disruption has a cumulative effect that can be very stressful for the teacher and can impact upon overall teaching and learning experiences. • All children should attend school ready to learn. Parents and carers need to be equipped to support their child when they experience behaviour issues. • Access to high quality alternative provision is critical; however, more work is needed to ensure better access to and better quality of alternative provision. Funding cuts risk damaging this important sector. • Poor behaviour and truancy are strongly linked and require coherent strategies to address these problems. 274

• The NASUWT believes that wide variations in the reporting and recording of information about allegations made by pupils about teachers should be tackled urgently. 275

Background and context

1. The NASUWT has consistently been at the forefront of campaigns concerning issues of pupil behaviour and discipline in schools. The NASUWT has developed considerable experience of dealing with behaviour and attendance issues in schools through individual and collective casework. Its activities in this area reflect the high priority given to these issues by classroom teachers and the challenges faced by school leaders.

2. The Union has produced high quality guidance on behaviour management for its members. It has also been successful in obtaining amendments to national guidance on behaviour; including securing a landmark victory in the House of Lords, ‘P v NASUWT’, that established the right of teachers, with the support of their union, to refuse to teach violent and disruptive pupils. Most recently, the DCSF issued a joint leaflet with the NASUWT on the rights and entitlements of classroom teachers with regard to pupil behaviour. This guidance has been highly regarded by schools and welcomed widely.

3. Schools are relative safe havens of calm and security, providing an orderly and well-developed environment that is immensely beneficial to young people.

4. The Select Committee’s review of behaviour and discipline in schools must be set in a context in which there is clear recognition of the fact that behaviour in schools is generally rated as good or outstanding. The vast majority of schools do not have serious or endemic behaviour problems. Ofsted has demonstrated that the vast majority of schools are providing an acceptable level of education and 70% are good or outstanding and there is further evidence of sustained improvement in schools over the past four 276

years. 1 Furthermore, Ofsted reports that ‘figures indicate that the very large majority of schools manage behaviour well and engage pupils effectively’. 2

5. Nevertheless, serious behaviour and discipline issues are a problem for teachers in a very small minority of schools and minor but significant behaviour issues are experienced by many teachers within schools. Teachers cannot teach and pupils cannot learn if there is not a well- ordered environment within the school. In March 2009, the NASUWT conducted a survey of members over one week and received 10,259 responses both from teachers and headteachers. The key finding of the survey was that the problem of ‘low level disruption of lessons’ was a concern for teachers in their attempts to deliver high quality teaching and learning experiences to their pupils. Additionally, the survey found that two thirds of teachers had reported that 30 minutes or longer was lost as a result of pupil indiscipline or poor behaviour. The loss of teaching and learning time is strongly related to the original capacity within schools to deliver support to the classroom teacher when it is needed.

Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools

6. A key issue when examining pupil behaviour and indiscipline in schools is the nature of support given to classroom teachers. The NASUWT has found that a major feature of schools that experience poor behaviour is that they do not consistently support the professional expertise and judgement of classroom practitioners. In the March 2009 survey, a small majority of teachers said that they lacked confidence about whether they would receive swift support when referring a disruptive pupil to school management (61%) and a larger majority of teachers said that they lacked confidence about whether they would receive timely feedback about a pupil when they were returned to the class (71%). One in five teachers

1 Christine Gilbert (2009), The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2008/09, TSO: London p.7. 2 Ibid, p.28. 277

(21%) stated that there were no mechanisms for the withdrawal of poorly behaved pupils from classrooms.

7. Although an overwhelming majority of teachers reported that their school did have a behaviour policy (93%), it is clear that schools need to be better geared towards supporting teachers in the classroom in managing pupil behaviour and must therefore be in touch with and supportive of classroom practice. This will require workforce changes in schools ensuring that all school leaders have a genuine commitment to an engagement with the classroom and the demands of classroom teaching.

8. There must be a greater recognition of the effect that a child’s life outside of school has on their attitudes to learning and in their relationships with others in school. The relationship between outside experiences and behaviour in school is well established, for example, the NASUWT has commissioned a major piece of research and subsequent toolkit concerning gangs and schools.

9. A key component of support for behaviour must involve greater collaboration and a shared responsibility between schools and other bodies within the local community. This support should be a genuine attempt to share ideas, expertise and resources to ensure that all members within a school feel supported. School Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships, designed to address the underlying problems leading to poor behaviour and attendance in schools, emerged following an expert review led by Sir Alan Steer and have begun to make a significant impact in improving behaviour and attendance. The Coalition Government’s decision to revoke the requirement for such partnerships is therefore a regrettable and retrograde step that will harm developments to encourage cross-community support for schools in managing behaviour.

10. Furthermore, the ability of schools to pursue collaborative links will be more difficult following the passage of the Academies Act 2010. Academies and free schools are under no obligation to collaborate with 278

11. Schools need support to be able to offer early identification and intervention for pupils whose behaviour is likely to escalate further. This must involve both support and challenge for pupils and their families. This will only be managed if services both within schools and within local authorities are appropriately resourced, with effective levels of training.

12. Furthermore, there are factors related to the presentment of poor behaviour, including particular special education needs. It is important that in an atmosphere in which cuts are touted for all major departments within Government that recognition is given to the importance of resourcing appropriate and effective SEN diagnosis, guidance and support.

13. A crucial aspect of encouraging good behaviour within schools is to have a broad, balanced and engaging curriculum in schools that is relevant to pupils’ lives and offers choice, as well as parity, between academic and vocational learning. The NASUWT would be concerned by any attempt that would lead to closing down pupils’ choices and the narrowing of the curriculum or over a prescription of curriculum and pedagogy. It is vital that teachers are able to exercise their professional judgement in relation to the teaching of a common curriculum entitlement for pupils.

The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

279

14. There is a distinction to be made between challenging behaviour in schools and low-level disruption, but both occurrences can be to the detriment of learning within schools. The impact of challenging and violent behaviour is more obvious and overt and must be dealt with in an effective and supportive manner for school staff who are witness to it. For example, the NASUWT has reflected teacher and public concern about gangs and the involvement of young people in violent crime within particular areas by commissioning a study by Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI) Ltd on gangs and schools with a final report published in 2009. Crucially, the study found that gang-related behaviours originate in contexts outside schools. The research found that schools need to work consistently and comprehensively with the police, youth services and others to identify young people at risk from gangs and in the delivery of effective preventative measures. The NASUWT launched a toolkit for schools to use in April 2010.

15. The NASUWT believes that schools should operate a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of bullying, including prejudice-related bullying. Schools must have in place effective systems to ensure that there is accurate recording and reporting of all forms of prejudice-related bullying against both pupils and staff. We would expect the Government to insist on data collection at school level and use the data to inform planning and decision making and for policies and procedures to be developed in consultation with workforce unions to tackle these problems.

16. The impact of low-level disruption, because it is on a smaller scale, is more cumulative. Examples of low-level disruption reported in the March 2009 survey included lateness, refusal to listen to the teacher, unwillingness to engage with the work, conduct within class and arrival without correct equipment. Each of these examples taken on their own would be profoundly frustrating but it is the very nature of the persistence of this behaviour that is the problem. For many teachers it is the unrelenting facet of these behaviours, together with the effect that they 280

have both on workload and on teaching and learning, that leads to stress and ill health.

17. There is a need for schools therefore to ensure that their behaviour policies accurately reflect the impact of such behaviour problems upon all members of staff and have effective procedures for dealing with it. However, having a policy is not enough. Schools must be encouraged to act upon an individual teacher's concerns and develop a consistent approach to ensure that issues are identified. The policy therefore needs to accurately reflect the best practice to be applied.

18. Of particular concern in recent years has been the growth of the use of digital media within this context. There is growing evidence of the use of digital equipment and social networking sites by pupils in an inappropriate way to bully and intimidate others. This phenomenon is referred to as ‘cyberbullying’. At an extreme level there are reported cases of students filming each other in acts of anti-social behaviour within school, and 'acting up' to the camera, in order to later share this information with their peers on YouTube or Facebook. Following representations from the NASUWT, the DCSF had begun to revise guidance to schools over this issue. However, schools have been slow to act on this and more pressure still needs to be placed by the Government on internet service providers (ISPs) to address this problem.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including the use of fixed term and permanent exclusions.

19. The NASUWT is concerned that targets, official or unofficial, to reduce or inhibit the number of exclusions within a school could have a detrimental effect on the ability of that school to fulfil its obligations, in respect of teaching and learning, to its pupils. Headteachers must be empowered to exercise their professional judgement in the use of exclusion. In the most severe cases, headteachers must be supported in excluding the pupil 281

permanently. Decisions to exclude a pupil must balance the interests of the excluded pupil against the interests of all the other members of the school community.

20. Furthermore, independent appeals panels should not direct the reinstatement of a pupil where the disciplinary process has been carried out without any procedural irregularities of a kind that might have affected the fairness of the procedure. The NASUWT welcomed the Secretary of State for Education’s pre-election pledge to abolish these panels and would urge the Government to carry out this pledge.

21. The lodestones of good practice within this area are consistency and collaboration. Schools that have a good approach to addressing challenging behaviour apply the rules consistently and appropriately and ensure that all people involved in decisions about exclusions have current training, up to and including school governors.

22. Collaboration through mechanisms such as Children’s Trusts are so important within this area because of the need to support schools to make difficult decisions in excluding pupils, including on a permanent basis, and ensuring that those pupils are able to have a second chance in a new institution, with appropriate communication between the two schools about the nature and challenge of pre-existing behaviours and strategies used. Schools that collaborate effectively and share information openly are also able to avoid the stigma of permanent exclusions for some students by using managed moves. These are only effective when schools operate in an arena of trust and are appropriately supported by the local authority. The NASUWT is extremely concerned that managed moves in particular will be almost impossible to operate in a marketised system of education where academies and free schools are expected to compete against each other.

Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour 282

23. Parents and carers have a key role in ensuring that children attend school ready to learn. Engagement of parents and carers in managing their children’s behaviour is therefore a crucial part of the overall picture in changing pupil behaviour within schools. This engagement must, however, be placed in a context in which parents and carers are given appropriate support and feel empowered to make choices for their children. This is a vital role for wider services for children and families, particularly in terms of supporting families at greatest risk. Support staff in schools can also play a crucial role in building links between the school and home. The NASUWT is concerned that budget cuts could undermine the provision of children and family support services.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

24. Schools must have access to high quality alternative provision as there are some instances in which it may be appropriate to exclude a pupil temporarily from a mainstream school and place them within this environment. A short spell in an alternative provision setting can be mutually beneficial for both the school and the pupil and can ensure that the pupil is able to return to school ready and focused on learning and no longer at risk of permanent exclusion. However, for too long, alternative provision has been under-resourced, leading to a variable quality of provision. Alternative provision needs to be a core part of the overall education provision in every locality, run by the local authority as part of a strategic overview of education within that area and accountable to the local populace. Given that 75% of pupils within pupil referral units (PRUs) are SEN, they must be appropriately resourced, with the facility to retain and recruit a high quality workforce. The NASUWT is extremely concerned that proposed cuts following the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will further exacerbate this problem.

Links between behaviour and attendance in schools 283

25. There is an enormous amount of evidence that links truancy to poor behaviour and anti social behaviour both inside and outside of schools. Within schools this may be as a result of the fact that a pupil may not be able to interact with the work they are required to do or may be as a result of a wider educational or social need. Truancy can also take place because of bullying within schools. This emphasises the need for the correct policies and procedures to be in place as identified in paragraph 15. The key to tackling truancy in schools lies with early intervention to identify and provide support for specific SEN students and for schools and parents to be vigilant in monitoring deteriorating attitudes to school. Parental support and engagement is crucial in tackling this issue and demonstrates the need for ensuring that parental engagement is a focus for all schools and communities.

26. The NASUWT welcomed the additional measures announced on 7 July in broad terms but is concerned about the lack of detail regarding their implementation. The NASUWT has campaigned for many years for anonymity for teachers facing allegations by pupils up to the point of conviction. However, there are still concerns about the wide variation in the recording and reporting by the police of information that is connected with an allegation and its investigation. The key issue is that teachers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations by pupils and this can have a devastating effect on their professional reputation, as well as their personal well being. Teachers have found that due to inconsistencies in reporting by police, a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check will make reference to an allegation, even though it is unfounded, and thus blight career prospects. This issue must urgently form the basis of future 284

guidance from the Government to ensure that this is not allowed to continue to happen.

27. The NASUWT was concerned that the changes to the notice period for detentions and the extension of a teacher’s power to search were measures that would need to be handled carefully by schools, ensuring that there is clear communication with parents and pupils, alongside a robust and accessible school behaviour policy. Additionally, guidance about the use of force for safety or restraint must be shaped carefully to ensure that teachers and headteachers are not left vulnerable to disciplinary or legal action.

September 2010

285

Memorandum submitted by School Food Trust

1. The following evidence relates particularly to question one – “how to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools.

2. The School Food Trust is an independent body with the unique remit of transforming school food and food skills. It was set up as Non Departmental Public Body in 2005 with £15 million of funding from the then Department for Education and Skills (replaced by Department for Children, Schools and Families, DCSF and subsequently by the current Department for Education (DfE) to promote the education and health of children and young people by improving the quality of food supplied and consumed in schools. In April 2007 the Trust became registered as a Charity.

3. National qualitative research conducted by the specialist children’s agency 2CV for the School Food Trust in 2009 (1) showed “lunchtime was a highly valued and anticipated” by both primary and secondary children. The agency identified a “hierarchy of needs” which need to be met for children to feel satisfied with lunchtime. These range from the basic need to refuel and relax to the more complex needs of engaging with their peers and using the time as an opportunity to express themselves physically, socially and culturally – the priority attached to each of these needs varies for children as they progress through primary to secondary schools and also vary for gender. The way in which schools structure their lunch service (eg the length of time, queueing, the dining room environment etc) to enable children to meet these needs has a strong bearing not only on their food choices but also on the extent to which they deem themselves “happy” at school. This is in turn has consequences for behaviour in school – particularly in the afternoon. Head‐teachers interviewed in this research and, elsewhere anecdotally, have identified the success of lunchtime as determining how well functions in the afternoon.

4. Nutritional standards which are now legally binding on all primary and secondary schools in England since 2006 have created new “choice architecture” which means that in terms of food children choosing school meals are more likely to be receiving a balanced, nutritious diet over a give menu cycle compared to children who do not eat school meals.

5. Two further pieces of research conducted by the School Food Trust provide direct evidence of how a well structured lunch hour and improvements to the quality of the food and dining environment have a positive impact on learning behaviours in the classroom

6. Six primary schools in Sheffield took part in a twelve week intervention study (School Lunch and Behaviour in Primary Schools: An Intervention Study) to assess the impact on learning‐ related behaviours of improvements to the dining environment and to the nutritional quality of the food served. There were four intervention schools, and two similar control schools in which no intervention took place. Food interventions included; introducing new menus compliant the food based standards; holding healthy eating workshops, taster sessions and themed weeks; introducing vegetable and fruit packs; providing better marketing materials; introducing halal foods. Changes to the dining environment included; changing the layout 286

and queing system; redecorating the dining room and buying new furniture. Behaviours were observed in pupils in the classroom in the hour after lunch, baseline and again at the end of the twelve week intervention. “On task” behaviours (that reflect concentration) and “off‐task” behaviours (that reflect disengagement and or disruption) were recorded in three social modes; pupil‐teacher interaction; pupil‐pupil interaction; and working alone. Overall levels of on‐task behaviours were high (80%) and levels of off‐task were low (11%). Following the intervention, pupils in the intervention schools were 3.4 times more likely to be on‐task in the teacher‐pupil social mode compared with pupils in the control schools. However, in the pupil‐pupil social mode, pupils in the intervention schools were 2.3 times more likely to be off‐task than those in the control schools. This study provides some objective evidence that an intervention in primary schools to improve school food and the dining environment has a positive impact on pupils’ alertness and ability to learn in the classroom after lunch. However, if this raised alertness is not appropriately channelled and supervised it may result in increased off‐task behaviour when pupils are asked to work together.

7. Eleven mixed secondary schools in four local authority areas in England took part in a 15 week intervention study to assess the impact on learning‐related behaviours in the classroom (School Lunch and Learning Behaviour in Secondary Schools; An Intervention Study) after lunch, following improvements at lunchtime to the dining environment and to the nutritional quality of the food served. There were 7 interventions schools and four similar control schools in which no intervention took place. Interventions were similar to those above. Changes to the environment were again similar except in this case pupil supervisors were introduced. Independent trained observers recorded pupil behaviour in the classroom in the teaching sessions immediately after lunch, at the beginning of the study and again after a fifteen week intervention. On task behaviours that reflect concentration and engagement, and off‐task that reflect disengagement were recorded in three social modes similar to above. It was found that following the intervention pupils were 18% more likely to be on task compared with those pupils in the control schools. Pupils in the intervention schools were also 14% less likely to be off‐task than those in the control schools. This study provides objective evidence that an intervention in secondary schools to improve school food and the dining environment has a positive impact on pupils’ engagement and concentration and their ability to learn in the classroom after lunch. It also suggests that pupils are less likely to be disengaged

September 2010

Footnotes

1. Customer Insights – research of primary and secondary school pupils’ view of school food. 2CV, 34 Rose Street, Covent Garden, London, C2E 9EB

287

Memorandum submitted by Teacher Support Network

Executive Summary

1. Teacher Support Network provides grants, counselling, telephone and online support to teachers in England, Scotland and Wales.

2. Poor behaviour and discipline are at the heart of many of the staff health and wellbeing issues that cause teachers to contact us. In many cases this results in increased teacher absence and can cause teachers to leave the profession.

3. We believe there is a causal link between poor behaviour, poor staff wellbeing and poor school performance. It is a vicious circle that needs to be broken.

4. It is in the interest of pupils, school staff, parents and ultimately the government to break this cycle as teacher wellbeing, and eventually teacher absenteeism, has a significant adverse economic and educational impact.

5. As a charity we wish to move the public agenda towards tackling these problems at source, rather than just dealing with the symptoms. We believe the solutions lie in:

• Involving every member of the school community in forming a jointly agreed, ambitious approach to behavioural and educational achievement • Ensuring that support is continually available to aid this consensual approach to improving behaviour in school communities. In particular, relevant tailored training should be taken by teachers, and parents and carers should be informed by effective guidance • School communities reviewing and renewing their approach to behaviour in light of any set backs, and sharing best practice with other communities locally and nationally.

6. We do not believe that cost is a major factor: much of what we feel is necessary should be an integral part of sound leadership and management, and indeed the cost benefits in the medium- to long-term will far outweigh any perceived short- term costs.

About Teacher Support Network

7. Teacher Support Network is a group of independent charities that provide practical, emotional and financial support to teachers in England, Scotland and Wales. Our team of qualified coaches, advisers and counsellors run a free confidential support service on the phone and online, which is available to any training, serving or retired teacher 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year. Previously known as the Teachers’ Benevolent Fund, we also provide grants to struggling teachers in England and Wales. The charity now assists education professionals over 100,000 times a year.

8. Teacher Support Network is proactively working to improve the health and wellbeing of teachers. Daily service usage reports give us a clear, real time indication of the problems teachers are facing. In addition, we undertake surveys and commission research to gain deeper understanding, raise awareness, and to inform campaigns to alleviate these problems facing teachers. Our sister social enterprise company — Worklife Support — runs the National Wellbeing Programme designed to improve the wellbeing of the whole school community.

The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff

288

9. Through our service use and research, teachers tell us that pupil behaviour is a growing problem. The use of Teacher Support Network’s behaviour-related services increased from 1,470 incidents between September 2007 — August 2008 to 9,341 between September 2009 – August 2010.

10. Our 2010 Behaviour Survey, run with Parentline Plus and with promotional support from the National Union of Teachers (NUT), found that there are many varieties of poor behaviour, which, individually or combined, present a huge challenge to teachers:

• 92 per cent of teachers who responded said pupil behaviour had worsened during their career.1

Certain types of poor behaviour are more frequent than others according to our 2010 Behaviour Survey:

• 57 per cent of respondents said they were ‘deliberately distracted…verbally to disrupt teaching and learning’ on a daily basis in the most recent full year of their teaching career • The second most frequent poor behaviour type, according to the survey, is when pupils ‘refused to work’ • The teachers, who responded to the survey, also said they experience other high-level pupil behaviour problems on a less frequent basis, such as abusive or insulting comments, theft or vandalism, assaults or threats to assault, and formal false allegations.

11. Teacher Support Network knows from its service use and research that poor behaviour affects teachers’ mental wellbeing, their ability to teach, and can even cause them to be absent from school or to leave their profession. Teacher absenteeism has both an economic and educational impact. The London School of Economics calculated that over £248 million could be saved if the education workforce sickness absence rate was reduced to the national average.2 Conwy Council in Wales recently revealed that it had spent £1 million in 2009-10 covering council staff and teacher sickness absences.3 Teacher absence impacts on colleagues, who must cover classes and workload, as well as on pupils, who do not receive the normal contact hours. Educational standards inevitably then drop.

12. Teacher Support Network assisted teachers with behaviour-related cases on average over 778 times a month between September 2009 and August 2010 alone.

• Over half of teachers who responded to our 2010 Behaviour Survey said that they had ‘felt at risk of losing self control’, for example by verbally or physically mistreating a pupil in a way they may regret, as a result of witnessing or being a victim of poor behaviour by a pupil • 79 per cent said they ‘felt unable to teach as effectively’ due to poor behaviour • 81 per cent said they had even experienced stress, anxiety or depression • 70 per cent had considered leaving the profession.

13. The case study included later in this memorandum highlights how pupil behaviour can impact upon teachers. We can also introduce the Select Committee to many

1 Results from the 2010 Behaviour Survey are embargoed until 00.01 am on Sunday 3rd October 2010, when they will be available at http://www.teachersupport.info/ 2 ‘The value of rude health’, May 2008, London School of Economics (p28) 3 ‘Stressed workers cost North Wales council £1m’, August 2010, Daily Post North Wales 289

other cases and the Committee can view an online forum of teachers discussing their experiences of poor behaviour.4

Links between pupil attendance and behaviour in schools

14. When we asked teachers in our 2010 Behaviour Survey which conditions cause some pupils to behave better than others, almost three-quarters said that a strong attendance record was ‘important’ or ‘essential’. Nevertheless, other conditions were rated even higher. 97 per cent said that consistent discipline and motivation by a pupil’s parents/carers and teachers/support staff was ‘important’ or ‘essential’, and many said the same for pupils who have a ‘stable’ loving home environment, for those who are part of a social network / friendship group that is well behaved, and for those who are from a background of social and economic advantage.

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

- Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions

15. There is a fundamental inconsistency in approach to behaviour within and between each part of the school community, which is sending a confusing, ineffective message to pupils overall. This can and must be addressed. Some school communities have taken innovative steps forward to address this problem, and teachers have also shown support for such policies, as detailed under the following terms of reference.

- Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

16. Teacher Support Network’s view is that every member of a school community should play their part in forming a jointly agreed, ambitious approach to behavioural and educational achievement. School communities should then be continually supported in their efforts, review and renew their approach in light of any set backs, and be encouraged to share best practice with other communities. This would ensure that no individual member of the community would be left to suffer because of poor behaviour and would encourage innovation and improvement in education.

17. Teachers supported this view in our 2010 Behaviour Survey. 5 The survey revealed clear majority support among respondents to annual reviews of school behaviour policies, ‘involving all staff, parents/carers and pupils’, as well as the writing of ‘school improvement plans that consider staff concerns’, consensual policies such as consistent discipline and motivation by parents/carers and teachers/support staff, and ‘high behavioural and educational expectations in school’.

18. A joint approach is vital; support is also highly important as this case study from a teacher named ‘Joules’, who posted to our online forum, demonstrates:

19. ‘It is with deep sadness that after 16 years as a teacher that I will now be leaving the profession. This is due to stress and depression caused by several physically and verbally abusive incidents by students. Although I have now returned to the

4 Teacher Support Network’s online forum discussion of behaviour can be viewed at http://teachersupport.info/public-policy/get-active/student-behaviour-forum.php

5 Ofsted’s ‘Improving Behaviour’ report made similar recommendations, emphasising that ‘schools can reduce low-level disruptive behaviour…using simple strategies, if everyone uses them’ Improving Behaviour, Ofsted; 2006 (p2) 290

school and can manage teaching perfectly well, I know that similar incidents will occur again and I am not prepared to damage my health any further. I feel that as well as taking far more proactive approaches to tackling pupil behaviour, schools must take far more responsibility for the care, welfare and safety of their staff. We are often expected to just put up with incidents that in the outside world would be a criminal offence. Why should I have to accept this, just because I am a teacher?’6

20. As Joules’ experience and the case study below shows, it is imperative that teachers feel supported by their colleagues and other school community members to respond proactively to any instances of poor behaviour. Over 80 per cent of teachers who responded to the 2010 Behaviour Survey said that the option to call other staff into a lesson to address disruptive pupils was ‘important’ or ‘essential’. Respondents also expressed similarly strong support for ‘support services for staff health, wellbeing and effectiveness’, ‘school social workers/ education welfare officers’, ‘parent-support workers’ and ‘behaviour performance monitoring by governors and School Improvement Partners’. 7

21. Training and guidance are two key forms of support. If the whole school community is to work together to improve behaviour, they must be advised and trained accordingly. As our ‘Beyond the School Gate’ report8 made clear, there is a strong real need and desire in school communities for all school staff to receive training in parent-teacher relations. This could be run by existing parent-support workers. In our 2010 Behaviour Survey, 86 per cent of respondents said that additional training for teachers would be important or essential in improving pupil behaviour. 96 per cent of respondents felt giving guidance for parents was important or essential.

22. School communities should continue to be guided by each other. Where school communities succeed in improving behaviour, others should be able to learn from their success. Some, such as Newall Green High School’s Headteacher, Neil Wilson, have been able to share advice locally and nationally, but they have been the exception rather than the rule. Some less well known behaviour improvement ideas, such as the use of curriculum re-organisation and sustainable development education, should be given a platform for discussion by practitioners.

- The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

23. Teacher Support Network knows from calls to our Support Lines and other service use that teachers can find the decision to exclude a pupil difficult. We welcome efforts to ensure high standards of alternative provision, which will help to reassure teachers when they have to make difficult decisions to exclude. Despite plans for abolition, teachers responding to our 2010 Behaviour Survey expressed strong appreciation for Pupil Referral Units, with 75 per cent saying they could play an important or essential role in improving pupil behaviour. Nevertheless, respondents to the survey showed an even stronger appreciation for withdrawal facilities, and also showed strong support for other internal behaviour-improvement resources, such as nurture groups, school counselling services, and school social workers / education welfare officers.

6 Teacher Support Network’s online forum discussion of behaviour can be viewed at http://teachersupport.info/public-policy/get-active/student-behaviour-forum.php

7 Other studies, such as Ofsted’s ‘Improving Behaviour’ report, also emphasise the importance of internal and external support. Improving Behaviour, Ofsted; 2006 (p5/7/8)

8 Beyond the School Gate: How schools and families can work better together, Teacher Support Network & Parentline Plus; 2010 (p10) 291

- The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July.

24. In our 2010 Behaviour Survey, the majority of teachers who responded said that the expanded set of search powers, announced by the Department, would be important or essential in improving behaviour in their current or most recent school. 69 per cent of teachers who responded to the 2010 Behaviour Survey regarded powers ‘for teachers to search pupils for stolen property and any other item which could cause disorder or pose a threat’ as important or essential for the future. However, a greater majority said that ‘additional training for teachers on challenging behaviour and using restraint and search powers’ would be important or essential. Also, in our 2009 Violence and Disruption survey with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 71.9 per cent of teachers who responded said they did not feel confident and comfortable in using the search powers set out in the ASCL Bill.

25. In principle, Teacher Support Network also backs the policy to end the rule requiring schools to give 24 hours written notice to parents before detentions, but has concerns about the policy to allow Headteachers to permanently exclude without appeal. Anecdotally, we know that teachers can already find it very distressing to decide to exclude a pupil. The abolition of appeals threatens to add to teachers’ workloads, further strain parent-teacher relations, and heighten the stress that teachers face. We hope that teachers would only use these powers where strictly necessary, and would instead opt to work with parents/carers and other school community members on disciplinary issues wherever possible.

Teacher Support Network case study – pupil behaviour

26. Abby had 15 years’ teaching experience, but had recently struggled with a particularly disruptive class. Pupils kept calling things out to distract her and often refused to do the work she had set. Some of the pupils would be abusive or insult her and had begun to damage her classroom. Abby tried to discipline the troublemakers, but she found she was often running out of time to teach her lesson. Although her Headteacher wanted to be supportive, they did not seem to have the time to find a solution with her. Abby began to dread going into work on the days she had this class and started to call in sick. After a while, Abby began to consider leaving teaching altogether.

27. Abby called our 24/7 telephone support line and spoke to one of our professional coaches who encouraged her to explore the options available. Abby and her coach discussed different ways of approaching the issue and talked about stepping back and just watching and collating what happened on a daily basis.

28. Abby realised that there was one class in particular that Abby was having problems with. When she took a longer look it was mainly down to one pupil who was instigating the bad behaviour in class. The coach helped Abby to think about how to overcome this by reinforcing good behaviour and not taking so much notice of the bad behaviour.

29. Through talking to a Teacher Support Network coach, Abby was able to see a way forward. She realised that there are lots of ways to improve the situation. For example, she started to think about ways to diffuse the bad behaviour instead of inflaming it, such as rewarding more good behaviour and ignoring the more minor bad behaviour. By putting things into perspective, she was also buoyed by the realisation that the majority of pupils she taught enjoyed her classes and achieved high standards. As a result of our coaching Abby felt in control again. She regained her confidence and is no longer considering leaving teaching.

292

September 2010

293

Memorandum submitted by Special Educational Consortium

1. Introduction

1.1 There are some key themes which SEC wishes to explore in its submission on school behaviour policies and the way they can best support and encourage the positive behaviour and engagement of disabled children and children with SEN:

• Behaviour difficulties are closely linked to a failure of a child to access education and make progress. Schools sometimes struggle to help disabled children and children with SEN access their education, and where this happens it can lead to disabled children and children with SEN being caught up in disciplinary procedures unnecessarily.

• Behaviour difficulties are often caused by underlying conditions, including mental health problems, underlying disabilities, and problems outside of school. Schools should look at the underlying causes of behaviour, as well as having appropriate disciplinary routes.

• It may be perceived that a disabled child is simply being naughty or deliberately disruptive when in fact this behaviour arises as a consequence of their disability or alternatively as a consequence of a lack of reasonable adjustments made to accommodate their disability. Schools need to understand the rights of disabled children and are legally required to make reasonable adjustments to their behaviour and discipline policies where a disabled child is concerned

• The SEN framework does, and was always intended to, address the needs of children with significant behaviour problems that cannot be solved through the standard behaviour and discipline frameworks operated by the school. This means children with some of the most challenging behavioural issues are supported through the SEN system.

2. Unmet learning needs as a major factor in disruptive behaviour

2.1 Behaviour difficulties are closely linked to a failure of a child to access education and make progress. Disabled children and children with SEN are more likely to have unmet needs, which goes some way to explain why they are more likely to be caught up in school’s disciplinary procedures. A number of reports have raised questions about the extent to which the exclusion of certain children is a result of their unmet special educational needs1,2.

2.2 While not all disruptive or challenging behaviour can be explained by a failure to have educational needs met, it is obvious that a child who is engaged with their education and making good progress is much less likely to be disruptive in class. None 294

of this means that schools should not emphasise the need for good discipline and apply appropriate sanctions where there is a breach of the behaviour policy. Nonetheless, it is the long term interests of both children and schools that teaching policies and practices place an importance on addressing the educational needs of children who display disruptive behaviour. This will have the benefit of both improving behaviour and increasing attainment.

2.3 The findings of a panel of senior teachers3 - that “learning, teaching and promoting good behaviour are inseparable issues for schools” - was echoed by Sir Alan Steer’s review of behaviour which stated that “much poor behaviour has its origins in the inability of the child to access learning”4. Ofsted has found that “most of the secondary schools in which behaviour is inadequate, teaching and learning are also inadequate”5. Parents of disabled children and children with SEN support this view: a survey by the National Autistic Society found that 66% of parents say a delay in accessing support had a negative impact on their child’s behaviour and 34% say it had a negative impact on their child’s mental health.6 It is also worth noting that the most common reason for exclusion is persistent disruptive behaviour7, which is more likely to occur when a child is not engaged or satisfied with their progress at school.

2.4 To help address the underlying causes of disruptive or challenging behaviour, behaviour policies need to emphasise the need for early intervention to asses whether the behaviour is a result of unmet learning needs. This is supported by Ofsted which found that behaviour will be poor where there is too little emphasis in the behaviour management strategies on improving the quality of teaching8. Where a child is disabled or has SEN and is becoming disruptive, behaviour policies should stress the importance of reviewing whether those additional needs are being met.

2.5 This is an even more pressing issue where there is an unidentified need, as children may be labelled as having behavioural difficulties when in fact the issue lies further back in the system’s failure to meet their educational needs. For example, there is a particularly strong link between children identified as having behavioural difficulties and children who have unidentified speech, language and communication difficulties9 10. Where are child has no identified need, behaviour policies should stress the importance of reviewing whether they have any additional needs where a child is displaying disruptive or challenging behaviour.

Recommendation 1 All school behaviour policies should have a focus on early intervention to address the underlying causes of behaviour, and particularly whether the behaviour is a result of an unidentified SEN.

Recommendation 2 All teachers should be properly trained in SEN, in order to recognise whether behaviour whether is a result of an unidentified or unmet SEN.

295

3. Behaviour policies – making reasonable adjustments for disabled children

3.1 It is clear from current evidence that disabled children continue to encounter significant difficulties in the way schools understand and address issues with their behaviour. Disabled children with a statement of SEN (i.e. disabled children with the most significant needs) continue to be eight times more likely to be excluded from school as their non-disabled peers11 despite statutory guidance which states that they should only be excluded in “the most exceptional circumstances”12. Children at School Action Plus –– many of whom will be disabled but who may not receive the same level of support as children with a statement – are over 19 times more likely to be excluded than their peers13.

3.2 The Equality Act 2010i requires schools to ensure disabled childrenii are not treated unfavourably because of a reason arising as a consequence of their disability and to make adjustments to ensure they can access all the benefits of their education. These protections apply equally to policies on behaviour, including blanket discipline policies which do not take account of disabled children’s different needs.

3.3 Like all children, disabled children display disruptive or challenging behaviour for a range of different reasons. They may not be accessing their education or making progress, they may have problems with communication, they may have mental health needs, or there may be issues outside of school. In some cases, a child’s perceived disruptive or challenging behaviour arises directly as a consequence of their disability or as a consequence of a lack of reasonable adjustments made to accommodate their disability. Whatever the case, if a disabled child is displaying disruptive or challenging behaviour, early intervention is needed to asses whether appropriate reasonable adjustments have been made for them – this duty is anticipatory. The fact that a child has a disability does not mean they should never be disciplined, but rather the behaviour and discipline policies should reflect the need to pay extra attention to the underlying causes of their difficulties to reflect the additional barriers disabled people face in society.

3.4 If a child’s disruptive behaviour arises as a consequence of their disability and reasonable adjustments having not been made, the school could be found guilty of disability discrimination if that disabled child is unnecessarily punished or excluded.

i The definitions and responsibilities contained in this section refer to the Equality Act 2010 which replaces the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and related legislation from October 2010 as the main source of protection from discrimination.

ii A person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. A physical or mental impairment includes learning difficulties, mental health conditions, medical conditions and hidden impairments such as dyslexia, autism, and speech, language and communication impairments 296

Recommendation 3 All schools should be made fully aware of their legal responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for disabled children, including flexibility in behaviour and discipline policies.

Recommendation 4 Schools should focus on early intervention to ensure disabled children receive the adjustments they need at the earliest possible stage, particularly where they are displaying disruptive or challenging behaviour.

Recommendation 5 All staff should receive adequate disability training in order to recognise disabled children, respond to their needs, and understand their duty to make reasonable adjustments to the way they enforce behaviour and discipline policies.

4. Explaining the link between Special Educational Needs and significant behaviour difficulties

4.1 The SEN framework does, and was always intended to, seek to address these needs of children with significant behaviour problems that cannot be solved through the standard behaviour and discipline frameworks operated by the school. The Warnock report upon which the SEN framework is based states that the system of special educational needs should:

“embody a broader concept of special education related to a child’s individual needs as distinct from his disability and a wider description of children which includes those with significant difficulties in learning, or with emotional or behavioural disorders, as well as those with disabilities of mind or body14”.

Therefore, where a child has behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties and these are acute enough to become a barrier to learning despite the usual interventions of the school, the child can receive support through the SEN framework.

4.2 There is a clear distinction between routine misbehaviour and children who seriously struggle with their behavioural, emotional, or social development to such an extent that it becomes a barrier to their learning despite the usual interventions of the school. There has been a recent rise in the number of children with behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties identified through the SEN system. One of the reasons for this may be where schools’ standard behaviour management and early intervention strategies are not robust enough to differentiate between routine misbehaviour and SEN.

297

Recommendation 6 The Government should makes a commitment to addressing the needs of children with behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties as parts of its plans to boost discipline in schools, and publish a strategy for doing do so

5. Addressing the needs of children with behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties

5.1 Any attempt to prevent serious cases of disruptive or challenging behaviour in schools must seek to address the needs of children classed as having behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties. Behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties arise as a result of a variety of often interrelated causes, including mental health problems, underlying disabilities, trauma, abuse, bereavement or chaotic home lives. There are also very strong links between significant behaviour difficulties and unmet communication needs15. Children with behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties are some of the most challenging for schools to teach and unsurprisingly are by far the most likely group of children to be excluded16. The argument about whether children who struggle with their behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties should be described as having special educational needs is less important than addressing the underlying cause of these problems, and often schools will also meet a child’s needs through mental health or pastoral support programmes as well.

5.2 Strengthening the ability of the SEN system to meet the needs of this group of children will significantly increase schools’ ability to improve their behaviour. Early intervention and additional input from specialist local authority support services is highly valuable, but problems of access for schools remains a problem17. There is currently considerable evidence that schools are seeking access to the additional help required from professionals in health and social services earlier than they were able to secure it and that access to child and adolescent mental health services was very variable18 19. Strengthening this support should be a priority. The fact that evidence has shown that between 60-90% of children with significant behaviour difficulties also experience communication difficulties also presents a strong case for particular investment in this area.

5.3 Many children with behavioural difficulties will also have underlying mental health conditions affecting their behaviour. Around one in ten school age children will experience a mental health problem at some point during their schooling20. Good schools will have a positive whole-school approach to improving the mental health and well being of all their pupils. For children with less severe mental health and/or behavioural needs, the school will be able to manage these within their usual mental health and well-being practices, such as small group work to promote social and emotional skills or peer support programmes21. For children with more significant mental health needs, excellent schools’ mental health policies will be closely integrated 298

and complimentary to the SEN provision for children with behavioural, emotional, or social difficulties, the school’s pastoral support services, and stress the importance of involving, and signposting to, local specialist services.

Recommendation 7 As part of its strategy to improve behaviour in schools, the Government should evaluate the benefits of significant programmes of early intervention in the areas of mental health and speech language and communication

6. Exclusions

6.1 Children who have been permanently excluded are less likely to achieve 5 good GCSE results or be in employment in later life22. There is also a long established link between being excluded from school and becoming involved in crime23 - for example, research from the prisons inspector in 2004 found that 83% of the young men in custody had been previously excluded from school24. There is a clear consensus that exclusion from school results in dramatically poorer outcomes for the child concerned and has significant long-term costs to society. There have been strong arguments made that we should move toward a zero exclusion school system25 26.

6.2 High levels of exclusions are both a cause and a result of poor social outcomes for young people with SEN and disabilities. A survey of 22 LEAs found that 87% of exclusions in primary schools and 60% of exclusions in secondary related to pupils with SEN27. Disabled children and children with SEN continue to be over eight times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than the rest of the school population28. It is essential that the Government as an urgent priority looks at reducing the number of young people with SEN and disabilities who are excluded from school. These groups of young people are already at a disadvantage in terms of accessing education, and being excluded from school only compounds this fact.

Recommendation 8

Where a disabled child or child with SEN is at risk of exclusion, a review of a

pupil’s special educational needs should be undertaken before they are

referred off-site. This should look at whether reasonable adjustments are

required for the disabled child or child with SEN which, if made, could avoid

the need to remove the pupil from the school.

7. Informal exclusions

7.1 Informal exclusions usually occur when a parent is asked to remove their child from school for a fixed period of time without the child being officially recorded as being 299

excluded. This practice allows schools to exclude children they find difficult without the child having done anything specifically wrong. Informal exclusions are a key sign that the school’s standard behaviour management policies is not robust enough.

7.2 Statutory guidance29 is clear than informal exclusion are unlawful. Nonetheless, recent reports have found that over 50% of local authority officers have particular concerns about the risks posed to children by unofficial exclusions30 and that informal exclusions continued to be a routine experience for some parents31.

Recommendation 9 The Government should look at ways of improving the way parents are informed of their rights and schools of their responsibilities. Parent Partnership Services and the voluntary sector are well placed to inform parents of their rights, and the Government should seek ways of supporting them to hold schools to account.

September 2010

1National Foundation for Educational Research, Admissions and Exclusions of Pupils with Special Educational Needs DfES Research report RR608, 2005

2 Audit Commission, Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue, 2002

3 Learning Behaviour. The report of the Practitioners Group on School Behaviour and Discipline, DCSF, 2005

4 Learning Behaviour: lessons learned - A review of behaviour standards, Institute of education, 2009 and practices in our schools

5 The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, 2008

6 Batten, A et al, Make school make sense, National Autistic Society, 2007

7 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008/09, Department for Education, 2010

8 Managing challenging behaviour, Ofsted, 2005

9 Gilmour, J., Hill, B., Place, M. and Skuse, Social Communication Deficits in Conduct Disorder: a clinical and community survey Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 45(5):967-978, 2004

10 Toppelberg, C.O. and Shapiro, T, Language Disorders: A 10-year research update review, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39: 143-152, 2000

11 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008/09, Department for Education, 2010

12 Improving behaviour and attendance: guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referral units, DCSF, 2008 300

13 Children with Special Educational Needs 2009: an analysis, DCSF, 2009

14 Warnock, H, Special Educational Needs - Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People, 1978

15 Cross, M, Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Communication Problems: there is always a reason. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2004

16 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008/09, Department for Education, 2010

17 A statement is not enough , Ofsted, 2010

18 Ibid

19 Making sense of mental health – the emotional wellbeing of children and young people with complex needs in school, NASS, 2006-2007

20 Mental Health: 1 in 10 children has a mental disorder, Office for National Statistics, 20005

21 Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project, Department for Education, 2010

22 Daniels, H et al, Study of Young People Permanently Excluded From School, University of Birmingham, 2003

23 Graham J and Bowling B, Young People and Crime, Home Office, 1995

24 Mark Challon and Thea Walton, Juveniles in custody, HMI Prisons, 2004

25 Sodha S. and Margo J, ex curricula, Demos, 2010

26 Peacey, N, Toward Zero Exclusions , IPPR, 2005

27 Special educational needs: a mainstream issue, Audit Commission, 2002

28 Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions From Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2008/09, Department for Education, 2010

29 Improving behaviour and attendance: guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referral units, DCSF, 2008

30 Children missing from education , Ofsted, 2010

31 Lamb Inquiry – special educational needs and parental confidence, DCSF, 2009 301

Memorandum submitted by Kent County Council

1. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

1.i Positive behaviour is built on understanding the needs of staff (adults working with children) and children and young people within the educational environment, and how to bring these together. This may range from consultation about an individual child with whom a school may be struggling, to working with a group of children and staff, through to helping a whole organisation think about the systemic issues.

1.ii It is essential that structures that support schools bring parents and schools together and help them gain perspective, understand and problem-solve, and develop confidence in exploring new and more effective ways of working with children. The key features that are fundamental to supporting and promoting positive behaviour are that: • schools are welcoming, nurturing environments where children and young people feel safe; • adults respect and value children’s views and opinions; • adults implement an authoritative approach which has children’s wellbeing at its centre.

1.iii Approaches that reflect these values and ideas include SEAL, Leuven, Solihull, Nurture groups, Restorative Practices.

1.iv Behaviour management at a systemic level is part of an organic process that fundamentally depends on empathy and communication skills. All three are essential, however empathy and communication are fundamental to the success of the third.

2. Nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact on schools and staff

2.i Data shows that schools identify large numbers of children as having behaviour problems, most often associating this with home or ‘within child’ factors rather than school factors. There is however an increasing awareness of children whose behaviour difficulties reflect underlying language and learning needs. Good schools seek to identify and address these at an appropriate level, drawing on external agencies as needed. Many schools have developed very effective systems for screening, monitoring and supporting children with a range of difficulties, including BESD.

2.ii Equally however, bad behaviour can be a product of poor leadership and poor provision, in terms of both the curriculum and the quality of teaching and learning. It is not coincidental that by far the majority of fixed term exclusions are for persistent disruptive behaviour in all phases of education. Problems that in one school would be absorbed and addressed effectively, in another school can escalate and lead to breakdown, and within any school one teacher may experience problems that another teacher does not. 302

2.iii It is unfortunate that the focus for schools in the National Challenge programme and the World Class Primary programme is entirely on threshold achievement. This leads schools to be less tolerant of pupils who, in their view, are less likely to contribute to successfully achieving those thresholds, either because of their effect on teaching and learning for others who might, or because they as individuals would not, or both.

3. Approaches taken by schools and LAs to address challenging behaviour, including fixed term and permanent exclusions

3.i How problems with behaviour and discipline are responded to at primary and at secondary schools varies with and reflects, the size and ethos of each institution. The advent of academies has resulted in a sense of increasing individualism. An example is where a school adopts a zero tolerance approach , thereby “getting rid” of problems through exclusion which simply shifts them to another institution. Equally, schools that simply escalate discipline issues up the hierarchy also find themselves in a position with high levels of exclusions – reducing these requires a mind set and approach on the part of school leadership that the responsibility for resolution and repair rests with the people involved. There are schools and facilities that need to provide much more structured, intensive support for some children who cannot manage within a mainstream setting at all, or who struggle at certain times in their school careers. The same parameters for success apply at all, its a question of ratio and emphasis.

3.ii Schools that are successful are those that have internal structures that support de- escalation and re-engagement, including the use of sanctuary and time out provision. The Inclusion Development Programme (IDP), produced by the National Strategies, contains a wealth of good practice guidance on addressing BESD. This valuable tool for training and preparation for good teaching by new and existing teachers remains under-used however.

3.iii There are particular examples of innovative approaches to transition, especially from primary to secondary phase. Many secondary schools now operate a ‘primary school’ teaching approach, often termed the Golden Curriculum, ranging from Yr 7 to the whole of KS3 (Yrs 7-9), which is designed to raise the confidence and self- esteem of pupils for whom learning is not an easy experience and for whom transition is difficult. As with any alternative provision approaches and learning goals need to be highly personalised, with exit pathways built in to the planning.

3.iv Some schools identify pupils for individual support and select and train older pupils in basic mentoring skills. Very successful ‘buddy’ systems can result as pupils feel well supported by their peers. This is often extended within whole school structures that build ‘mini-communities’, including non-teaching ‘support officers’ (see below – FLOs and PSAs).

3.v There is increasing evidence of Restorative Practices being developed in schools, having a positive impact on the level of recorded incidents of challenging behaviour. 303

This is most effective when it is part of a whole school approach, in which both adults and pupils have an equal stake.

3.vi Schools that deal successfully with behaviour are those which are aware, through recording and analysis, of the whole environment, particularly unstructured times of the day. These include breaks, lunch, moving between sessions, start and finish times. Carefully planned and personalised activities to engage pupils, and calming measures for movement tend to be features that work.

4. Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

4.i There is much greater awareness of and acceptance of parent/carers’ need for understanding and supporting their children, but it needs to be much more “joined up”. Schools, as universal providers for children, are well placed to be a conduit for support, and this is frequently provided through Family Liaison Officers (FLOs) and Parent Support Advisers (PSAs). Schools have pointed to the improvements in parental engagement and attendance enabling Headteachers and teaching staff to focus on standards. The Education Welfare Officers view FLOs as their first point of contact on attendance issues and work in partnership with FLOs and PSAs. This has resulted in improved attendance and a reduced caseload. FLOs and EWOs are seen as having a key role in the implementation of “Think Family”, CAF, SPA and “The Team Around the Child”. The withdrawal of some Family Support Services have meant that FLOs and EWOs are being involved in an increasing number of complex cases.

4.ii The recent review evaluation of the activities of FLOs and PSAs working in Kent has stimulated discussion about whether their role should take incorporate some of the role of a Social Worker Assistant to further support families, and the training implications should this move forward.

4.iii It must of course be recognised that there are often significant environmental factors that can be contributing to poor behaviour at school: lack of sleep; adolescence; screen time/violent games; gang culture; parent/carer views of the value of education or their own negative school experiences.

4.iv This is an opportune time for schools to be looking into the possibilities of either extending their social pedagogy, by rethinking the TA/LSA role to help pupils to socialise, interact and learn how to learn together. There are many good examples of this approach internationally.

5. How Special Educational Needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

5.i It should not be possible for a school to separate its policy development in relation to behaviour and discipline from its statutory duty (Disability Discrimination legislation) to make reasonable adjustments in relation to behaviour, where a school has identified a pupil as having BESD.

304

5.ii There is significant link between unmet speaking and listening/speech and language development delay, often identified early in a pupil’s school life but not adequately addressed. Once again IDP is a valuable training tool (Speech, Language and Communication modules), and developments of the Language Link primary and secondary phase screening tools and strategy advice will be very useful. Although this may be a generalisation it is likely that secondary school teachers have little understanding of the need to adjust their own language, which can create huge barriers for pupils with language and communication needs. This may be linked to a view that they teach ‘subjects’ not ‘children’.

6. The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour

6.i It is important to emphasise the need for a continuum of provision that is first and foremost designed to prevent exclusion because of behaviour. At the earliest stages of a child’s involvement in formal education their range of social skills may be very limited, depending on their pre-school experiences. Some children benefit from specific nurture group opportunities provided at school, or organised between partnerships of schools.

6.ii There are very good examples of the use of “sanctuary” provision within schools to de-escalate and re-engage, often so successful that they cease to be needed.

6.iii Where alternative provision is made either on or off-site (short stay schools) the need to plan timely re-integration is essential. The aim should be two-fold: to build the capacity of the referring school to reflectively make reasonable adjustments, particularly to the curriculum delivery and to teaching and learning, and build capacity so that the pupil is not returning to the same environment in which he has failed; to modify the behaviour of the child in a learning environment. Restorative approaches can be an effective tool to support the reintegration of pupils across both primary and secondary phases, by seeking to address and find resolutions acceptable to all parties to the underlying courses of behaviour rather than simply punish it. This approach allows all parties to move on in a positive way, feeling that the issue has been fully addressed.

6.iv Ideally there should be a continuum of alternative provision through to the most specialist of special school provision, with outreach, support and advice to mainstream schools being precise, well co-ordinated and transparent.

6.v Alternative provision should not be confused with alternative curriculum, although there are good examples of creative and flexible approaches to the breadth, delivery and location of the curriculum which are advantageous to disaffected pupils. It is possible to achieve (as Kent has shown) a very wide range of commissioned alternative curriculum options from a wide range of providers. These are long term arrangements however, usually for the whole of Key Stage 4, not designed to re-integrate pupils back into their original mainstream school. They are designed to re-engage and re-integrate pupils into full time education, employment and training pathways post-16. Alternative curriculum providers should not simply 305

replicate a basic mainstream curriculum for the disengaged mainstream pupils whose behaviour challenges mainstream schools..

7. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

7.i Poor attendance at school is often a useful indicator of potentially difficult and challenging behaviour. The strong emphasis in the last few years on attendance analysis and the identification of persistent absenteeism is valuable to schools and the LA. As described above there is a particular coherence in the approach that some schools take when reflecting on their provision, in order to make school a place that pupils want to come to every day, and once there, want to stay at, regardless of what their parents/carers’ own experiences have been.

7.ii Where there is less than rigorous registration of absence, and even the use of part- time attendance and other informal (and occasionally illegal) arrangements in which schools are complicit with parents over non-attendance, there should be robust investigation and challenge from the Local Authority.

8.i Motivating disaffected pupils is usually more a matter of reward and praise than a process of sanction and punishment if it is to be effective. ‘Catch them being good’ is a very powerful approach, as the role of schools is to identify and recognise all young people’s talents.

September 2010 306

Memorandum submitted by Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education

1. Current UK law says that children said to have special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools, so long as this does not conflict with parental wishes or effect the efficient education of other children (section 316 of the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001). It is therefore up to schools to ensure that all children’s needs are met. This also includes those children and young people said to have emotional or behavioural difficulties.

2. School are inherently failing to uphold the principle of the best interest of the child (as stipulated in the Children Act, 1989 and The United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, 1989) when they temporarily or permanently exclude students on the grounds of behaviour or special educational needs.

3. When the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA 2001) was introduced, the Department for Education and Skills published guidance for schools on the new framework for inclusion of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. The guidance confirmed that the general duty is to educate all children in mainstream schools and clearly explained: “The starting point is always that children who have statements will receive mainstream education” (DfES, 2001).

4. Equally, following the proposals for the reform of children’s services in Every Child Matters, the DfES published a key document setting out the government’s vision for offering children said to have special educational needs opportunities to succeed: Removing Barriers to Achievement: the Government’s Strategy for SEN (DfES, 2004). A commitment to inclusive education for all children and young people in mainstream schools was clearly articulated: “All teachers should expect to teach children with special educational needs (SEN) and all schools should play their part in educating children from their local community, whatever their background or ability.”

5. Legal enforcement of segregation on the grounds of disability (including special educational needs), learning difficulty or emotional need is against international human rights agreements, including the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994), the UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).

6. The importance of mainstream, permanent provision for all is not yet widely understood. Temporary or permanently excluding students is deeply problematic. Educational provision needs to be re‐organised and its delivery changed. Children and young people who spend their school years separated from their brothers, sisters, friends and potential friends from their local community, often end up living their adult life at the margins of society. If children and young people are all to live in a society together, they all need to go to school together. There is, therefore, a strong argument for developing provision for everyone in ordinary local schools.

307

7. Schools may support and reinforce positive behaviour by valuing all members of their community equally irrespective of appearance, perceived ability, nationality or other differentiating features. This includes staff, students, parents/carers, governors and the members of the wider local community. By treating every person in the school community as simultaneously a learner and a teacher the skills and experiences of all students can be drawn upon. This in turn impacts on young people’s motivation and ability to learn.

8. Schools should ensure that their provision is inclusive. Inclusion involves widening participation for all students and reducing exclusion.

9. There is nothing that happens in special schools or Pupil Referral Units that cannot, and should not, take place in mainstream schools.

10. Excluding children and young people from mainstream provision on the basis of their behaviour can have disastrous effects in both the short and longer term. Richard Rieser of Disability Equality in Education explains: “Many young people leave with no qualifications, a label which devalues them, a circle of friends who feel as hopeless as each other, a loss of confidence and self‐esteem and often a rejection of society’s values as they feel they have been rejected from society.” (Speaking at the CSIE Day Conferences ‘An inclusive approach to difficult behaviour’, 25 November 1998 and 1 March 1999).

11. Segregation is morally problematic. One head teacher outlines this view cogently: “I was sitting there getting inspected, and that was really the first time I started to have my beliefs challenged. It was in a really rough area, disused flats all the way around the school and very disruptive pupils, and on the second day I excluded a child for violent behaviour, because that’s what an advisor does, so I sent him out for five days. And I remember distinctly – it was one of those moments when your life begins to change – I’d sent this boy out and I was standing at the window and I saw him... and he was riding his bike between a white van and one of these flats and he was running the heroin wraps for local dealers. And it just struck me. Because I know this van belonged to a dealer, and it was one of those moments when I felt I can’t do that, I can’t possibly morally do that. I’ve excluded him to a world where he can’t possibly survive. So I took him back in and I created systems, I paid for full time teaching assistant support for him. And I’d done the same with a girl the same year. She had bizarre behaviour. But when I excluded her I’d excluded her to a serial abuser who lived in the same house. So I stopped excluding after that.” (James Kilsner, November 2001, in interview for ongoing CSIE enquiry, Working with the Index for Inclusion).

12. Disciplinary exclusion may be prevented if students are adequately supported. Changes may need to be made to teaching and learning activities.

13. Schools should minimise all forms of disciplinary exclusions including temporary suspensions and permanent expulsions.

14. Schools should have understandable, constructive plans for re‐introducing students who have been temporarily excluded. 308

15. Clear records must be kept of all exclusions. These should be available to Governors who should be kept informed about what is happening.

16. Schools might like to engage with the Index for Inclusion : developing learning and participation in schools (Booth & Ainscow, 2002) (see, http://www.csie.org.uk/publications/inclusion‐index‐explained.shtml) to help them identify gaps in their provision through a self‐review of the school’s cultures, policies and practices. The Index draws upon what schools are already doing but helps makes individual school cultures more inclusive through building a sense of community, establishing inclusive values, developing schools that are fit for all learners, supporting and valuing diversity, orchestrating learning and mobilising resources. Although not specifically designed to have a focus on the inclusion of children and young people said to have special educational needs or emotional or behavioural difficulties, the indicators and questions listed in the Index can be of considerable help to schools wanting to develop more inclusive provision for all.

17. Rather than speaking of special educational needs and singling out individual children and young people it is more conducive to think about what barriers exist to all young people’s learning. In this way schools may ensure that provision is suitable for all learners.

18. Schools should not remove learners on the basis that their behaviour is disruptive due to a fear that they are likely to achieve little academically. Educational policy should not simply be collapsed into economic policy, nor should issues of ‘social inclusion’ be simply conflated with economic efficiency or productivity.

19. It is important to remember that promoting disability equality is a whole school approach and not a matter for a particular class, teacher or teaching assistant. Inclusive provision is more likely to be successful if fully supported and led by the senior leadership team. In this way it is most likely to be embraced by the whole school.

20. Schools should engage with programmes of peer support (such as Circle of Friends, see http://www.inclusive‐solutions.com/circlesoffriends.asp), including peer mediation, use other children and young people as mentors, and engage in initiatives such as the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) in order to teach all children and young people emotional intelligence and life‐skills.

21. Students should be encouraged to be responsible for their own behaviour and encouraged to help resolve conflicts and disputes amongst their peers.

22. All members of the school community including staff, students, parents/carers and governors should share a view of what constitutes bullying. All members of a school community should be familiar with each of the forms of bullying specifically covered in anti‐ bullying guidance. Policies on unacceptable behaviour and their consequences need to be known by everyone.

309

23. The aim of increasing the learning and participation of students should be seen as the primary aim of all pastoral and behavioural support staff. Other staff members need to recognise and value its importance.

24. Strategies deployed to help with the behaviour of individual or groups of students should always be linked to improvements in teaching for all students.

25. Behaviour support should address barriers to learning and participation in school policies, cultures and practices.

26. Lesson planning should reflect on and attempt to minimise barriers to learning and participation for all students.

27. Teachers should examine ways to reduce the need for individual support for students. Teaching assistants should not be used to effectively teach individual students.

28. All teachers and teaching assistants should be offered chances to learn how to reduce the alienation and disruption of students. An attitude of mutual learning should be fostered.

29. The school should avoid activities that may lower the self‐esteem of students in recognition that there is a link between low self‐worth, alienation, disruption and exclusion.

30. Schools must ensure that behavioural and pastoral support policies address the well‐being of students who are discreetly distressed.

31. The school must avoid creating disaffection amongst certain groups of students, such as the bottom tier of streamed classes.

32. The school should address feelings of depreciation as, and when, they occur.

33. The knowledge of parents/carers should be used to further the learning of all members of the school community and may also be used to help reducing alienation and disruption.

34. The school should address the origins of alienation or problematic behaviour amongst certain groups of students and link this to wider society – for example the relationship between popular culture and certain portrayals of masculinity and femininity might be linked to ideas of violence and eating disorders.

35. Problems should be dealt with as they arise. The way in which problems are dealt with need to be tailored to the individual circumstances.

36. Schools need to ensure that response to ‘bad’ behaviour are guided by principles of education and rehabilitation.

310

37. Schools should ensure that details of student’s past that may include ‘bad’ behaviour remain confidential upon starting at their new school. Teachers should treat such students in the same equitable way that they would all others, irrespective of what the student has done.

38. Barriers to attendance should be explored within the cultures, policies and practices of the school as well as in children and young people’s attitudes and homes.

39. Unauthorised leave of absence is not a reason for disciplinary exclusion.

40. An equitable response needs to be pursued for all unauthorised absences irrespective of the gender or background of a student.

41. Schools should recognise the relationship between unauthorised leave of absence, bullying and the lack of supportive friendships.

42. Schools should encourage and support the return to school and contribution of student’s who have been away for a long time, whatever the reason.

43. Appropriate systems for reporting absence need to be embedded. This includes opportunities for staff to discover why students may truant and is sufficiently detailed so that absences from specific lessons may be tracked. Where this occurs staff should ask students about their relationship with the relevant teacher.

44. Schools should have a co‐ordinated strategy for students who are being seen by other agencies such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health or Social Services.

45. Reasonable adjustments need to be made for certain students in regards to Behaviour and Discipline policies in recognition that the Disability Discrimination Act allows for such adjustments. These include for students suffering from mental ill health or experiencing emotional or behavioural difficulties.

46. The hearing of students should be checked, and where necessary Speech and Language Therapy (SALT0 assessments should be carried out prior to labelling as student as having behavioural issues.

September 2010 311

Memorandum submitted by Buckinghamshire County Council

Executive Summary:

It is our view that effective behaviour management is rooted in developing the skills of all staff who work with young people. Schools in Buckinghamshire recognise that discipline of itself does not tackle poor attitudes to learning. The proactive approach of creating respectful relationships with students, working to engage parents, and providing targeted interventions for groups of pupils to remove their barriers to learning is reducing incidents of poor behaviour.

We have found that good quality, strategically planned preventative work is an essential tool in raising standards of behaviour in our schools. Initiatives such as the creation of Inclusion Centres in upper schools and the preventative work of our Pupil Referral Units and other agencies has had a significant, positive impact on the behaviour, learning and achievement of students across our county. We feel that effective partnership working supports the development of strong links with parents, good quality alternative provision and is invaluable in supporting the achievement of disadvantaged or vulnerable pupils.

Main Submission In considering its submission Buckinghamshire County Council has sought to respond under the headings in the remit for the inquiry.

1) How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools;

1:i) Buckinghamshire County Council has had a Behaviour Strategy in place since September 2007, the principles of which were initially developed during a Behaviour Conference attended by over 30 representatives of schools and Local Authority officers and then refined by a smaller, representative, working group.

1:ii) Our agreed principles are:

1:ii:i) Children/Young People will be listened to/respected and their views responded to at all level’s of the behaviour strategy.

1:ii.ii) Prevention and early intervention is key to supporting positive behaviour. We aim to create an emotionally literate community that recognizes the fundamental impact of positive values and ethos on children and young people’s learning and general well being.

1:ii.iii) All cultures and diverse needs are recognised, understood and supported. Diversity will be respected and celebrated and inclusion actively promoted.

1:ii.iv) Responsibilities and roles will be clearly defined for all those supporting children/young people in the area of BESD.

1:ii.v) Partnership working will be actively promoted with all key stakeholders, multi-agencies, parents, children/young people and the community.

1:ii.vi) Continuing professional development in the area of personal and social development will be promoted within the authority for all staff who work with children and young people.

1:ii.vii) Safeguarding of children and young people will be actively promoted throughout the Behaviour Strategy and Action Plan.

1:ii:vii) To build schools capacity to be more flexible and innovative with the curriculum in order to promote engagement and achievement. 312

1:iii) Items 1:ii:i to 1:ii:viii served as a guide to our Strategy and Action Plan and were used as our baseline for all subsequent actions and agreements. These have been regularly reviewed and adapted to make sure that they remain relevant and useful within an ever-changing context.

1:iv) We believe positive behaviour and regular attendance at school is a key element to raising standards. Ensuring every child has the benefit of a full and enriching education will result in positive outcomes for children and young people in Buckinghamshire. We believe poor behaviour can have a negative impact on children’s health, safety, achievement, long term economic well being and their ability to make a positive contribution to their school, their family and society.

1:v) It is our view that effective behaviour management is rooted in developing the skills of all staff who work with young people. This is supported by:

a) a robust school behaviour policy that details the aims, expectations and responsibilities of the school, parents/carers and pupils b) senior staff who support the school in leading and managing behaviour by promoting a positive climate for learning. c) clear and agreed systems of rewards and sanctions consistently applied and used by all staff d) a dynamic learning environment both within and beyond the classroom that encourages positive behaviour. e) an understanding by all staff of the links between behaviour, attendance and pupil progress and attainment f) A workforce who are confident in managing all aspects of behaviour

1:vi:) It is our experience that the approaches developed in collaboration with the National Strategies are constructive ones for building positive behaviour in the classroom.

1:vi:i) Buckinghamshire secondary schools have fully engaged in the Behaviour and Attendance strand of the National Strategy. The 4 core training days, attended by 22 Uppers, 2 Grammars and 3 Special schools, set the firm foundations to create positive behaviour for learning by focusing on whole school climate, consistent application of policies with rigorous monitoring supported by staff training and support for challenging pupils.

1:vi:ii) The training days have created a shared ethos across the county and a commitment from schools to achieve positive learning environments created through clear expectations including rules and routines, reward driven classrooms and incremental sanctions working in tandem with good teaching and learning. The schools recognise that discipline by itself does not tackle poor attitudes to learning. The proactive approach of creating respectful relationships with pupils, working to engage parents, and providing targeted interventions for groups of pupils to remove their barriers to learning is reducing incidents of poor behaviour.

1:vi:iii) The work commenced in the core training days continues with the implementation of SEAL across primary and secondary schools, participation in the NPSLBA programme and the setting up of Inclusion centres in 21 of our Upper Schools where the dual role of discipline and planned support are in operation.

2) The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff;

2:i) Permanent Exclusions

Permanent Bucks National % total % total % total exclusions PEx as % PEx as % Bucks Bucks PEx Bucks 313

(PEx) from of total of total Pex from from PEX from maintained school school Primary Secondary Special primary, population population School School School secondary, special schools 2007/8 39 0.05 n/a 5% 80% 10% 2008/9 40 0.05 0.11 0% 85% 15% 2009/10 47 0.06 n/a 0% 91.5 8.5 ii) Fixed Term Exclusions

Fixed term Bucks F. T. % total % total % total exclusions Ex as % of Bucks Bucks Bucks (F.T.Ex)from total school F.T.Ex from F.T.Ex from F.T.Ex from maintained population Primary Secondary Special primary, School School School secondary, special schools 2007/8 3,274 2.2 7 82 11 2008/9 2,918 2.2 6 83 11 2009/10 2,344 1.9 6 84 10

2:iii) In 2008/9 1,678 pupils had one or more period of exclusion. This represents 2.2% of the total school population. This % is the same as for 2007/8.

2:iv) In 2008/9 62% of pupils who received a fixed term exclusion were only excluded once. 16% of pupils who received a fixed term exclusion were excluded twice.

2:v) The 2008/9 permanent exclusion rate for boys was almost three times higher than that for girls. For fixed term exclusions boys received just over three times the number of exclusions than girls. This is in line with national trends.

2.vi) In 2008/9 50% of all permanent or fixed term exclusions were of pupils aged 13 and 14. This is in line with national figures.

2: vii) The 2008/9 data for Buckinghamshire shows that pupils with SEN are 8 times more likely to be permanently excluded than the rest of the school population.

2: viii) Reasons for Exclusion 2008/9 (%)

Persistent Verbal Verbal Physical Physical Drug and disruptive abuse/threat abuse/threat assault assault alcohol behaviour ening ening against against a related behaviour behaviour an adult pupil towards an towards a adult pupil 2008/9 25 20 15 7.5 15 0 permanent 2009/10 38 8.5 2 6 12.5 10.5 permanent 2008/9 Fixed 20.6 19.5 4 4.5 18.5 4 term 2009/10 Fixed 14 20 3.5 3.0 20.5 4 term 314

2:ix) Ofsted Judgements 2009-10: 2009 framework (by calendar year)

Outstanding Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Primary 2009 4 13 0 0 Primary 2010 12 15 1 0 Secondary 2009 2 2 1 0 Secondary 2010 1 1 1 0 Special 2009 3 1 0 0 Special 2010 1 1 0 0

2:x) In summary, fixed term exclusions have dropped 28% in three year and 94.5% of Ofsted Inspections in 2009-10 have rated behaviour good or better. However, permanent exclusions rose in 2009/10, particularly with regard to persistent disruptive behaviour. Although the numbers for persistent disruption are still small (10 in total in 2008/9, 18 in 2009/10, including those excluded from Special Schools) it does suggest schools are dealing more firmly with the behaviour of this small group of pupils while seeing a significant improvement in overall standards of behaviour.

3) Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term and permanent exclusions;

3:i) As a result of the strategies outlined above, the use of fixed term exclusions in Buckinghamshire is falling.

3:ii) We believe this improvement is a result of the focus on developing positive behaviour and of the preventative work led by our five Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).

3:iii) Buckinghamshire has five pupil referral units, two secondary and three primary. They have each been judged good or outstanding by Ofsted.

3:iv) The PRUs deliver both in-reach and outreach support.

3:v) In-reach support involves taking pupils on to their roll for either an agreed number of days a week for a fixed period, full time for an agreed period or full time after a permanent exclusion and before supported reintegration into a new school.

3:vi) Outreach support involves working with the pupil and teachers in the school setting. This can involve observation, developing behaviour plans or building staff expertise in meeting a pupil’s needs and managing their behaviour.

3:vii) Preventative work often involves a multi agency team including, in different combinations, educational psychologists, education welfare officers, CAF/Team around the child, SEN, parenting support and health workers.

3:viii) We believe that preventative work has been strongly underpinned by evidence based programmes used and supported by the government in the last few years including Targeted Mental Health in Schools, SEAL, SEAD, Parenting Programmes monitored by NAPP ( National Association of Parenting Practitioners) such as Triple P, Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities. Within Buckinghamshire we have used a number of small scale evidence based programmes such as Pyramid Clubs (which have good national evaluations) and Nurture Groups (which have good national evaluations).

315

3:ix) Behaviour has improved as a result of improved awareness/understanding in schools and services of mental health issues and their impact on children’s learning and development and support services capacity to assess and provide intervention for pupils with mental health issues.

3:x) Exclusions & Reintegration Officers work with schools to promote inclusion by offering intervention for individual cases at risk of exclusion or for those pupils without a school place. Managed Moves are promoted and encouraged where appropriate as an alternative to permanent exclusion

3:xi) 21 of our upper schools have developed inclusion centres to support pupils presenting challenging behaviour. These aim to • Improve engagement, participation and progression. • Reduce permanent and fixed term exclusions by retaining pupils’ engagement in education. • Improve inclusion by continuing the education of pupils who have specific and complex difficulties at times when they would otherwise be failing to learn. • Offer flexible provision and targeted interventions for groups of pupils to remove their barriers to learning. • Support the reintegration of pupils.

4) Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour;

4:i) Just as positive behaviour is underpinned by strong, courteous relationships so the same applies to working with parents. A child can be disadvantaged by a parent’s negative relationship to a school. Good behaviour is easier to establish when fully supported by parents.

4:ii) We do not believe all poor behaviour originates in school. Many examples are the result of factors outside school and, if dealt with in isolation, can reinforce a child’s level of disadvantage. The organisations and interventions listed in 3:viii have helped build better relationships with families and, through this, helped bring about improvements in behaviour.

4:iii) It is widespread good practice across Buckinghamshire to use behaviour contracts. These can be general for all pupils or tailored to specific needs.

4:iv) We support the continued use of Individual Behaviour Plans and Parenting Contracts for young people who are persistently disruptive or unable to manage their behaviour. These should be drawn up with parents and reviewed in partnership. It is our experience that working in partnership with parents to improve behaviour increases the chance of positive outcomes.

4:v) We welcomed the proposals, in the parent guarantee, that schools could be firm in dealing with parents who refuse to support the school in dealing with poor behaviour or otherwise undermine the school’s behaviour policy.

4:vi) Parent Support Advisors (PSAs) have begun to make progress in building strong links between schools and parents who have an antagonistic or anxious relationship with schools so that pupils, often vulnerable pupils, do not become disadvantaged by their parents negative views of school or education.

4:v) We targeted PSAs to those secondary schools that had persistent absence issues alongside principle primary feeders to those schools where progress, results and/or attendance were an issue. 316

5) How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline;

5:i) A school’s Behaviour Policy should be rooted in principles of fairness and equality. With regard to Behaviour this should mean that schools make it explicit that everyone cannot be subject to exactly the same methodology. Responses to behaviour incidents should be differentiated. A child should not be punished if a school has failed to meet their needs.

5:ii) Policies should recognise that behaviour becomes a SEN when there is no response or improvement in a child’s behaviour following a range of interventions and support. The child may then require modification to their programme, to the support they receive and to their place of study. This needs to be recorded, shared with all staff, implemented consistently and regularly reviewed. The policy must recognise that pupils should be given tasks relevant to their need.

5:iii) Individual SEN guidance for pupils needs to be age specific and site specific. What is reasonable in one setting due to age and need would not be relevant in another. Pupils displaying behaviours not normally associated with age and the setting would require additional support and intervention. Pupils with other learning difficulties may well display behaviours not normally expected in less challenged pupils.

5:iv) SEN policies relating to behaviour should guide staff to develop interventions that are time limited, have a clear programme of support and clear outcomes. These may be linked to support from other agencies.

5:v) Our Behaviour strategy recommended that schools should: • Ensure that individual preventative support offered for a child/young person is carefully developed within the framework of their family and community needs • Ensure that all placements and transfers of pupils with BESD are effectively managed and supported. • Improve continuity between primary and secondary phase support • Improve the quality and sharing of information about pupils with BESD • Ensure that the views of the child/young person are listened to and respected and responded to at all levels

5:vi) Schools should ensure high quality communication with parents/carers of children/young people vulnerable to BESD and ensure that parents are fully informed of the provision in place to avoid unrealistic expectations.

6) The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour;

6:i) Our experience shows that quality alternative provision is valuable as both a preventative tool to avoiding permanent exclusion when interventions within school are not working and as a model of provision for excluded pupils.

6:ii) The Exclusion and Reintegration team and the PRUs arrange access to a range of alternative provision for permanently excluded and other vulnerable young people with no educational placement or where mainstream schooling or placement at a Pupil Referral Unit is considered not appropriate. Following 'Back on Track' guidance the team have a dedicated Alternative Provision Officer to oversee the quality of provision for each young person in alternative educational provision, to monitor their progress and to ensure that support from other agencies is mobilised, as required.

6:iii) We have many examples of young people experiencing a successful conclusion to their period of compulsory education as a result of alternative or flexible provision. These young people have gone on to training, further education or employment. 317

6:iv) We have worked with a range of Alternative providers who have met the needs of pupils in different ways. Some have been full time, others have complemented PRU or school placements. Some are vocationally based – i.e. Skidz in High Wycombe, others use distance learning – i.e Accipio.

6:v) We feel that alternative and complementary programmes like Playing for Success have a significant preventative role in reducing exclusion. These should be expanded, particularly in the age range from 13 -14 where the majority of exclusions occur.

7) Links between attendance and behaviour in schools;

7:i) Behaviour and attendance are intrinsically linked: challenging behaviour can result in poor attendance and vice versa and the links between poor attendance and antisocial behaviour are nationally recognised. Both impact directly on standards and on individual pupil attainment and achievement. In both instances, if a pupil is not attending school, whether through exclusion as a result of unacceptable behaviour or as a result of truancy, safeguarding concerns are also a priority. Buckinghamshire Local Authority’s Attendance Strategy outlines the ways in which parents and schools are supported in ensuring regular attendance.

8) The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July.

8:1) We welcome some aspects of the changes announced by the Department on the 7th July. The comments on a culture of respect and courtesy is central to our strategy as outlined in 1) and is an integral element of effective learning.

8:ii) The analysis of Buckinghamshire’s exclusions in 3) above shows that we need to keep issues about behaviour in context. Our experience of the schools in Buckinghamshire shows there is not widespread unrest or disruption in schools, a view supported by a series of Ofsted inspections. We do agree that good behaviour underpins effective learning. This is one of the reasons why we place such value on SEAL and SEAD and the effective range of interventions we have in place to support behaviour in schools. Our experience tells us this helps create a climate where teachers can teach and children can learn effectively. We have welcomed the 2009 Ofsted critieria for behaviour which suggested that quiet compliance is not guarantee of good or effective teaching and learning.

8:iii) We are ambivalent about the promise of legislation to extend Headteachers powers to search. Some Heads feel this is potentially problematic and may compromise their role, safeguarding and the productive relationships with pupils who come from complex backgrounds. Our exclusion data suggests that this legislation is not one of our priorities in education and the current good partnership work with the police should be developed. We welcome the proposal for fuller consideration and consultation with Headteachers.

September 2010

318

Memorandum submitted by West Sussex Educational Psychology Service

Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools. For positive behaviour to occur in schools the following are necessary: • Clear guidelines for behaviour and discipline which are clearly communicated to all. The most successful guidelines are those that include participation from all key stakeholders, including children, young people and parents, as well as staff members. Once agreed these need to be consistently applied by all. A good policy must take into account the challenge of varied individual circumstances. For example, in the case of a rule such as no swearing. An A grade student with no previous behaviour concerns swears at a teacher. The previous week his father had died. The school rule is exclusion for swearing.

• A need for a positive ethos informing behaviour and discipline policies. Outstanding schools have an outstanding positive ethos in which academic and non-academic excellence are celebrated (such as effort and contribution to the school community).

• Well trained staff who have a clear understanding of the behaviour policy. In the best schools this understanding is underpinned by a shared model of child development and behaviour.

The Nature and level of challenging behaviour in schools Poor behaviour in schools is indicative of a poorly run school. In such cases, schools rarely employ the strategies listed above.

Challenging behaviour by a group of students in a school should be seen as an indication that the school policy is not working for the whole school community: “violence is the language of the unheard” (Gandhi).

The impact upon schools and their staff Dealing with and managing challenging behaviour is one of the most difficult activities school staff face. However, effective behaviour management can be taught from teacher training onwards. A key activity of educational psychologists is supervision of teachers, helping them to make sense of challenging behaviours and to respond to them differently, using a number of psychological models of behaviour.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed term and permanent exclusions: Area partnerships in which head teachers take ownership of all students in their geographical area are effective. E.g.: heads of mainstream schools also consult with special provision and out of school provision. In the best scenarios they have shared ownership of these pupils and the provision within the locality.

319

Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour. Parents and carers must be part of the school community and hear of their children’s successes and achievements, as well as concerns about behaviour.

Successful outcomes for behaviour management involve co-responsibility between parents and schools with regard to pupils.

Recognising special educational needs in school policies on behaviour and discipline In a school with outstanding behaviour and discipline and in which the curriculum is appropriate and engaging for all pupils, the incidence of poor behaviour relating to special educational needs is significantly reduced.

SEN would then be more clearly associated with mental health problems and disability. Eg Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Anxiety, Depression, Anorexia.

Currently specialist services are overwhelmed by disaffected youth.

The efficacy of alternative provision for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour. Alternative provision is most successful when it is on mainstream school premises and run by heads – or groups of heads - and their school staff. Payment for this service by the school is a necessary way of ensuring that efficacy is sought and achieved and that the student is still considered part of a wider, mainstream school community.

Powers to search pupils This is not an appropriate role for teachers. It could place them at risk on a number of levels and destroy opportunities for developing the positive relationships that are vital for good quality learning. Such actions would also undermine a positive behaviour policy as mentioned above.

Removal of requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours Not giving prior notice to parents and carers is plainly a case of bad manners. It ignores the fact that children, young people and families have a meaningful, active life outside of school. It is likely to foster negative relationships between parents and schools and create an issue where one need not exist.

September 2010 320

Memorandum submitted by Pearson

1. Summary

Pearson has found that increasing learner engagement, improved tracking of the progress of individual learners and early intervention is critical to tackling poor behaviour and discipline.

Technology is a powerful and often under-utilised tool in increasing learner engagement, allowing for more personalised and interactive approaches to learning. Technology can also be used to spot problems early, helping teachers to identify and support the learners that are most at need before problems become serious. For those learners that have already been excluded from school, alternative learning provision can help re-engage them with learning.

Two Pearson solutions which draw on this technology, Fronter and Prevent, have been shown to produce impressive results when addressing behaviour and discipline issues.

2. Introduction and context Pearson UK is part of the global media and education group Pearson. For more than a hundred years we have provided teachers with many of the tools they need – books, learning resources, and teacher support packages, through brands including Edexcel, Longman and Heinemann. Working in over 60 countries, Pearson has built an international reach that enables us to support teachers and learners to reach their potential and progress in their lives. The scale and range which come from operating both a publishing/technology business and an assessment business mean that Pearson is uniquely placed to provide joined-up support to improve outcomes and learning.

3. Pearson believe that challenging behaviour and problems with discipline are often caused by pupils becoming disinterested in and then disengaged from their learning experience. Consequently, one of the ways to manage this is to support teachers in ensuring that the learning experience is personalised and as fit-for-purpose as possible. Over time, Pearson are aiming to separate the content of our resources from assessments, enabling all of our products and resources to become truly personalised, therefore cutting the risks of disengagement. This personalised approach has been used successfully in our sponsored academies although it is still too early for the evidence to be definitive as students have only been in the academies for a single year.

4. Pearson offer two behaviour and discipline solutions that are used internationally to address those students who are at risk of dropping out of school; Fronter (http://uk.fronter.info/) and Prevent (http://www.preventdropout.com/).

5. Pearson solution one: Fronter Fronter is a learning platform used by millions of teachers and learners around the world. The platform is made up of almost 100 easy to use web-based tools which can be customised according to the needs and vision of each school. For example adjustments can be made to suit the school’s pedagogical methods, learner age group and subject areas. The following case study shows how Fronter is used to help teachers manage behaviour at Hallingby Skole, in Norway. Frode Sømme, the Head Master says:

6. We use Fronter every day to document behaviour among our pupils. We are using the Absence tool in Fronter. We have at our school what we call "prosperity rules"(well being). We have five of these rules, which are: • We expect all pupils to respect one another and speak with politeness, without using bad language or improper behaviour like violence or bullying. • Pupils and teachers shall be in the classroom when the teaching session begins. • We expect an atmosphere of law and order. We do not accept disturbances from pupils. • No drugs, alcohol or smoking is allowed at school. • Mobile phones are not allowed inside the classroom. If pupils break these rules, they get a mark in Fronter where is recorded what happened. Every month a report is sent to the parents who sign these papers. If pupils have ten marks in half a year, they will 321

drop a grade in behaviour. Another ten, and they drop to the lowest grade. Each pupil starts with zero marks at the beginning of each semester (two in a year). Fronter makes teacher’s lives easier because it is so simple to use and is a great tool for documentation.

7. For those students who have been excluded and are studying at Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), becoming re-motivated and re-engaged with learning can be a major challenge. Fronter is already being used successfully by teachers in UK PRUs, for example in Newhaven.

8. Teachers working with challenging pupils at Newhaven PRU are benefiting in a number of ways from Fronter: • Class Templates: Lessons are being designed with a standard format across subjects, using templates. This makes lesson content easier to access, especially for pupils who do not attend regularly. • New resources: New resources have been researched and developed, including weblinks, for each subject that are regularly updated and loaded into Fronter. This enables teachers to offer more variety in their lessons, and pupils to be more engaged in their learning. • Improved learning continuity during absence: Pupils who are absent for whatever reason are able to access lessons online from home. • Reinforcement of learning objectives: Pupils can repeat any lesson they wish to at any point, if they need to remind themselves of the content. • Flexible learning: Virtual pupils, who are not able to attend the PRU in person for any reason, can take part in lessons remotely at their convenience. • Resource variety: Mixed lesson resources are held in a single place, so that they can be accessed together on demand.

Further details at: http://fronter.info/downloads/uk/Fronter_Case_study_Newhaven_PRU.pdf

9. Pearson solution two: Prevent Pearson also offers Prevent, a product used mainly in the US where it is estimated that 1.2 million students drop out every year, that’s 7,200 a day or one every 26 seconds. Prevent was founded by Gary Hensley, a former school Assistant Principal who developed the system with Dr Trish Hatch, a Professor at San Diego State University. The system is designed to identify as early as possible those students most at risk of dropping out of school, allowing limited resources to be efficiently targeted at those with the greatest need.

10. By using existing student information, Prevent enables school teachers to quickly assess and compare the performance of individual learners and to pro-actively use a dropout prevention program where necessary. Prevent collects student attendance data, course failure rate, grade point average, behaviour and disciplinary data, tests scores, and demographic data that includes gender, ethnicity, race, grade level, and poverty level. All this information is securely imported to Prevent then analysed against proven algorithms. The resulting benchmarked information allows Prevent to generate something called the Pearson Index, which is based on and validated by the work of our industry- leading psychometric team. Proven to be effective, this index compares the elements that research has shown to be the most likely indicators of students dropping out, weighted according to the most predictive values for each of the factors.

11. Prevent features an easy to use internet browser-based dashboard with simple, "at-a-glance" reporting so that school teachers and other staff can quickly spot at-risk students and take action to help.

12. Using Prevent allows school staff to direct their limited time and resources most effectively - one of the issues facing schools in the US is that staff responsible for the pastoral care of students can have up to 500 students to monitor. Its success demonstrates that behaviour and discipline problems can be avoided before they begin when systems are put in place to identify those at risk earlier with staff resources focused on putting interventions and support into place.

September 2010 322

Memorandum submitted by Anti-Bullying Alliance

Summary

Bullying remains a significant concern for children and young people, school staff and parents and carers. Bullying has a disproportionate affect on vulnerable groups and it leads to poor educational and social outcomes for those who are bullied and for those who bully.

Whilst there has been significant support for anti-bullying work over the years there is still much to do. ABA presents the following key messages to the Select Committee to consider in their analysis:

• There has been significant progress made in the past ten years on protecting children from bullying. There should be continued support for a whole school focus on tackling bullying in order to secure this progress aligned with new thinking on how to stop bullying outside of school occurring including cyberbullying and on journeys

• There is potential within the curriculum to teach knowledge about bullying and related issues and to develop skills and competencies that can reduce the likelihood and impact of bullying behaviour occurring

• Responding to bullying needs to be seen within both mainstream behaviour management and child protection contexts. Responses should be drawn from a sound understanding of how to apply the school’s own behaviour management processes in general as well as knowledge of specific techniques that are effective in bullying cases including the use of restorative approaches

• The role of Ofsted in monitoring children’s safety to learn and develop as well as compliance with equalities legislation and law relating to child protection must be upheld

• Better and more systematic data collection and analysis at school level in relation to bullying is an imperative that should be supported

• The role of external agencies in providing specialist support to schools must be maintained by local government commissioners and planners

2. About the Anti-bullying Alliance (ABA)

The Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA) was founded by the NSPCC and National Children’s Bureau (NCB) in 2002. It brings together over 70 voluntary and statutory organisations with the aim of reducing bullying and creating safer environments, in which children and young people can live, grow, play and learn and has been instrumental insupporting bullying prevention in schools and the wider community and developing best practice relating to bullying since inception.

3. Information for the Committee 323

3.1 Bullying remains a significant issue for children and young people in schools.

The Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE)1 found that 47% of young people report being bullied at age 14. In the Tellus4 survey2 28.8% of children reported having been bullied in school during the previous12 months. Of these 23% were bullied most days, and 11% every day. 26% of children reported that their school deals not very well or badly with bullying. The Children’s Society, Good Childhood Report3 found that bullying was a top concern for children and young people. 18% of all calls to Childline from 2007-2008 were related to bullying.

3.2 Bullying has a negative affect on attainment and attendance

The LSYPE also showed that young people who reported being bullied had lower Key Stage 4 scores than other young people. They were more likely to leave full time education at the age of 16, and were particularly likely to be NEET.

A survey for Beatbullying4 found that a third of truants stay away from school because of bullying. 72% of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults reported5 a history of absenteeism at school due to homophobic harassment.

3.3 Bullying has a disproportionate effect on vulnerable groups

The LSYPE found that characteristics associated with being bullied include being female (although boys were more likely to report physical types of bullying), being white, having a religion the young person felt to be important to them, having a SEN or disability, having been in care, living in a step family, being a young carer or having changed school at age 14-15. Research carried out by Mencap6 found that 8 out of 10 children with a learning disability had been bullied, 6 out of 10 had been physically hurt. 40% of those who had told an adult about the bullying said it still did not stop.

1 Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Youth cohort study and longitudinal study of young people in England: the activities and experiences of 16 year olds. London: DCSF.

2Chamberlain, T., George, N., Golden, S., Walker, F. and Benton, T. (2010) Tellus4 National Report (DCSF Research Report 218). London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

3 Children’s Society (2006) Good childhood? A question for our times. London: Children's Society.

4 Beatbullying (2006) Bullying and truancy report. London: Beatbullying

5 Rivers, I. (2000) Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support for Learning, 15 (1). pp. 13-18.

6 Mencap (2007) Bullying wrecks lives: the experiences of children and young people with a learning disability. London: Mencap.

324

A report7 from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England concluded children with disabilities or visible medical conditions can be twice as likely to be bullied as other children. In the biggest ever survey8 of LGB young people, 65% had experienced bullying in school (75% in faith schools). 30% said the person doing the bullying was an adult.

A review of the effectiveness of measures to protect children with SEN and disabilities undertaken by ABA will confirm the vulnerability to bullying of these children is very significant.9

3.4 Bullying prevention is key if schools are to meet their duties under equality law

The Equality Act 2010 requires that schools take steps to prevent discrimination, harassment or victimisation of staff and children and young people with protected characteristics. This means schools need to take measures to protect staff and pupils from bullying related to disability, homophobic bullying, transphobic bullying, sexist and sexual bullying, and bullying related to race and religion.

3.5 Cyberbullying is a significant concern

An ABA study10 of 227 10 and 11 year olds showed that 1 in 5 had been cyberbullied in the past 12 months. 22% did not know how to protect themselves online, and 18% had been cyberbullied while at home. 40% of children were using social networking sites sometimes, 19% were using them a lot. A poll of 1163 parents found that over half had not talked to their children about cyberbullying, and 45% did not know how to report abuse online. A report of the online safety practice of over 500 schools in the South West region11 showed that the policy and pratice of primary schools is considerably less developed than secondary schools. The report also showed a signficant lack of teacher training in this area across both primary and secondary schools.

3.6 Sexual and sexist bullying is an emerging concern

There is an emerging concern about harmful sexual behaviour between some children and young people, including sexual and sexist bullying. Recent research suggests exploitation and

7 Office of the Children’s Commissioner (2006) Bullying today: a report by the Office of the Children's Commissioner, with recommendations and links to practitioner tools. London: Office of the Children's Commissioner

8 Hunt, R. and Jensen, J. (2007) The school report: the experiences of young gay people in Britain’s schools. London: Stonewall

9 McLaughlin C., Byers R., Peppin-Vaughn, R. (in press) Responding to bullying among children with special needs and disabilities. London: Anti-Bullying Alliance

10 Unpublished survey carried out for ABA. BRMB interviewed 1,163 parents of children aged 8-14 years in October 2009.

11 Phippen. A. (2010) Online safety, policy and practice in the UK: an analysis of 360 degree safe self review data. Exeter: South West Grid for Learning.

325

violence may be alarmingly common in intimate relationships involving under 16s. 75% of girls report emotional violence, one in three girls and 16% of boys report sexual violence, and 25% of girls and 18% of boys report physical violence12. Exclusions data for 2008/200913 showed that there were 110 permanent exclusions from secondary schools and 10 permanent exclusions from primary schools for sexual misconduct.

3.7 Bullying on journeys to and from school is a significant issue

The Tellus4 survey found that 24% of children reported being bullied outside of school (including the journey to school) in the last four weeks.11% of children reported feeling a bit unsafe or very unsafe going to and from school. A recent British Youth Council and NCB survey14 of under 18s found that only 27% feel safe waiting for transport after dark.

3.8 Domestic violence impacts on bullying and behaviour in schools

750,000 children and young people see violence going on at home every year in the UK15. A recent study from researchers at the University of Washington (UW) and Indiana University16, found that children who were exposed to violence in the home engaged in higher levels of physical bullying than children who were not witnesses to such behaviour. The study is one of the first in the United States to specifically examine the association between child exposure to domestic violence and involvement in bullying.

4 Recommendations for action

4.1 Continued support for a whole school focus on tackling bullying

ABA recommends that maintaining a whole-school focus on tackling bullying is effective. An example - the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme, has now been implemented in hundreds of schools in Norway and the US. Studies in Norway showed this achieved a 50% reduction in the number of bullying incidents, 20% in South Carolina.

12 NSPCC (2009) NSPCC policy summary: sexual bullying in education settings. London: NSPCC

13 Permanent and fixed period exclusions from schools and exclusion appeals in England, 2008/09. (SFR 22/2010) London: DCSF. (SFR 18/2009).

14 British Youth Council and NCB (2010) British Youth Council and NCB survey of under 18s on transport safety. London: National Children’s Bureau.

15 Department for Health (2010) Taskforce on the health aspects of violence against women and children (2010) Responding to violence against women and children: the role of the NHS. London: Department of Health

16 N, Bauer N.S. (2006), Childhood bullying involvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics, 118 (2) e235-242.

326

In a systematic review of the effectiveness of programmes to reduce school bullying, researchers 17found school-based programmes are often effective, and elements of lead to a decrease in bullying and victimization. ABA has developed a school assessment tool that supports schools in measuring their progress in developing their approach. ABA recommends this tool, or similar tools are promoted to schools to support their work.

4.2 Use of the curriculum to teach about bullying and related issues, and to develop skills and competencies that combat bullying behaviour

ABA supports the use of the curriculum in teaching about bullying. Issues relating to bullying can be addressed through all curriculum subjects. Competencies that combat bullying behaviour through improving emotional literacy and resilience have been delivered through the SEAL programme and Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education including Sex and Relationships Education (SRE).

ABA recommends schools should continue to utilise teaching and learning and the curriculum as key responses to issues of bullying, harassment and discrimination.

4.3 Promoting the use of specific and general approaches to respond to bullying

ABA understands that a school that can manage behaviour well is in a good position to manage and resolve bullying when it occurs.

For incidents of bullying, schools should develop a relationship between their existing strategies for general behaviour management (including graded sanctions) and specific responses that may be suited to resolving bullying issues including those based on restorative principles.

Restorative approaches ensure that victims of bullying feel supported in showing the impact of bullying, while perpetrators are able to learn about the affect of their actions and make positive change –whilst exclusion is clearly a response that schools must be empowered to use if necessary, it can be argued that it offers limited room for restoration and change. Restorative approaches also make it possible for staff to consider some of the motivation behind acts of bullying – there may be wider issues within the school community that are impacting on bullying behaviour (e.g. retaliation and discrimination).

A report from the Department of Justice18 in the US emphasizes the danger of simple ‘zero tolerance’ exclusion policies in tackling bullying. The report says that such an approach “may

17 Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., & Baldry, C.A. (2008). Effectiveness of programs to reduce school bullying: a systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

18 Sampson, R. (2002) Bullying in schools (Problem-oriented guides for police: problem-specific guides series, guide no. 12). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

327

result in a high level of suspensions without full comprehension of how behavior needs to and can be changed. It does not solve the problem of the bully, who typically spends more unsupervised time in the home or community if suspended or expelled.”

4.4 Supporting the role of Ofsted in monitoring compliance with equalities legislation and law relating to child protection

While the majority of schools act against discrimination and harassment there are still some schools where this is not made a priority. The Tellus4 survey found that a quarter of pupils report their school deals not very well or badly with bullying. The ABA strongly recommends that government continue to support the role of Ofsted in monitoring compliance with equalities legislation and the prevention and response to bullying as a vital area of child protection.

4.5 Promoting data collection in relation to bullying

Unless schools regularly collect and analyse data relating to bullying it is very difficult to measure levels of bullying or evidence the impact of interventions. The two areas of data collection that the ABA recommends are the recording of bullying incidents, and regular pupil perception surveys. The discontinuation of the Tellus survey will now make it difficult for schools and local areas to assess their progress against national benchmarks.

Many schools are utilising existing technology to capture and analyse incidents. One model is the extension of the SIMS data programme to include bullying incidents. With all types of bullying it is vital that schools are able to identify and record when a criminal offence has been committed –from hate crime to harassment and assault, and refer the incident on to the appropriate agency.

Government should consider how to engage ABA member organisations in a wider discussion on how the anti-bullying sector’s considerable knowledge around this issue can be made more widely available to schools.

4.6 Supporting workforce development in this area

In a recent Anti-bullying Alliance survey19 of local authority anti-bullying leads, 75% local authorities represented in the survey were delivering annual teacher training in anti-bullying work.

However, they indicate that in the current economic climate, many LA s will not be able to afford to offer this development to their schools.

The ABA is also concerned that initial teacher training offers very little in the area of bullying as part of covering approaches to behaviour management. The ABA recommends that government reviews the inclusion of training around issues of bullying in initial teacher training,

19 Unpublished ABA national survey of local authority anti-bullying leads (2010)

328

and the ongoing training of staff. This is vital if teachers are to be educated in complex areas such as cyberbullying and the bullying of vulnerable groups – and will support the reasonable steps that schools need to ensure staff comply with their duties under the Equality Act 2010.

The ABA recommends that training for school Governors in handling issues relating to bullying is better profiled. The ABA has recently worked with Governors from primary, secondary and special schools to produce a guide about bullying. They reported that they are often in receipt of parental complaints about bullying – complaints that are complex and difficult to resolve, and can sometimes result in escalation through the local authority or even to the Secretary of State for Education.

4.7 Supporting the role of external agencies in providing specialist support to schools

Bullying behaviour can be complex and difficult to manage. There are times where access to specialist intervention is vital – such as with cases of sexual bullying. There may also be a need for particular support for children who are vulnerable to bullying, or who have been damaged by bullying – and similarly there may be a need for ongoing intervention for children who display bullying behaviour. Currently the external agencies that offer support to schools include a range of local authority staff (e.g. educational psychology, Connexions, behaviour support, equality and diversity workers, child and adolescent mental health), and the voluntary sector. Evidence suggests that it is more beneficial to involve those agencies whose primary role is to address disruptive behaviours rather than generic agencies like the police20.The ABA recommends that local government continues to support external agencies in providing specialist support to schools where necessary.

4.8 Involving parents and carers in anti-bullying work and supporting parents with concerns about bullying

Researchers find that there is evidence that good quality parent training and education reduces bullying and disruptive behaviour.21 Bullying behaviour is not limited to schools, and can follow children home via the use of ‘cybertechnology’ to bully and harass.

Parents and carers have a key role in educating their children about the effects of bullying and promoting positive behaviour in the home and the wider community. We also know that domestic violence in the home has a significant impact on bullying behaviour in schools. The

20 Blank, L. et al (2009) Systematic review of the effectiveness of universal interventions which aim to promote emotional and social wellbeing in secondary schools. Sheffield: University of Sheffield/NICE

21 Blank, L. et al (2009) Systematic review of the effectiveness of universal interventions which aim to promote emotional and social wellbeing in secondary schools. Sheffield: University of Sheffield/NICE

329

ABA recommends that support for parent training and education is reviewed, and that consideration is given to the ways that cross government strategies to support positive parenting, marriage and relationships and to prevent domestic violence, can also impact on bullying behaviour in schools.

ABA recommends there is action to ensure parents understand the legal duties of all types of school to prevent and respond to bullying, to promote equality and to prevent discrimination and harassment.

Parents should be required to support the efforts of the school in preventing and responding to bullying, promoting equality and preventing discrimination and harassment.

Schools, local authorities and government spend significant amounts of time responding to parental complaints in relation to bullying. In June 2008, the ABA held a national conference on ‘Supporting Parents and Carers to Tackle Bullying’.

The conference brought together head teachers, commissioners, education welfare officers, local authority anti bullying leads as well as parents and young people. One of the key recommendations from the conference was for independent mediation services to be provided to support parents, carers, pupils and schools with complaints about bullying. The delegates at the ABA conference (2008) agreed that this service would be most effective if independent of the school and local authority, engaging the trust of all parties.

September 2010

330

Memorandum submitted by National Governors’ Association

1. Introduction

1.1. The National Governors’ Association (NGA) is the national membership body for school governors. NGA has several categories of membership comprising individual governors, school governing bodies and independent local associations of school governing bodies. NGA seeks to represent the interests of all school governors and governing bodies in all phases and types of school (including academies).

2. How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools;

2.1. Governors are responsible for the strategic direction of the school, including its ethos. They have specific statutory duties under Section 88(2) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006). These are to: • make, and from time to time review, a written statement of general principles to guide the headteacher in determining measures to promote good behaviour

• notify the headteacher and give him or her related guidance if the governing body wants the school's behaviour policy to include particular measures or address particular issues

2.2. Governors are required by the Act to consult pupils, parents and staff about the statement of general principles.

2.3. The headteacher has a legal duty to establish a behaviour policy and procedures, setting out the detailed measures (rules, rewards sanctions and behaviour management strategies). In determining the behaviour policy the headteacher must have regard to the governing body’s general statement of principles.

2.4. The NGA believes that it is right that the governors set the over-arching ethos, but that the headteacher who is the lead professional in the school is responsible for determining the day to day rules and associated sanctions and rewards which go hand in hand.

3. The nature and level of challenging behaviour by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff;

3.1. The NGA does not dismiss the challenges of poor behaviour, but would like to draw attention to Ofsted’s findings (Annual Report 2009) which found that behaviour was good or outstanding in over 80% of schools. Poor behaviour impacts on both staff and other pupils and does not provide an effective environment for learning.

4. Links between attendance and behaviour in schools

331

4.1. If there was clear link between poor attendance and poor behaviour then the NGA would expect that the percentage of schools with good or outstanding behaviour would be similar to those with good or outstanding attendance records. This is not the case. Ofsted reported that just over 55% of schools had good or outstanding attendance records – whereas as noted above 80% of schools had good or outstanding behaviour.

5. The Government’s proposals regarding teachers’ powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July.

5.1. The NGA supports the Government’s proposed announcements about powers for teachers; it is essential that all staff, pupils and parents are clear about teachers’ powers in these areas.

September 2010