Secondary schools face a challenge when dealing with violent and difficult students. Disruptive students can affect the learning of their peers and prevent teaching staff from effectively delivering the curriculum, they can also pose a physical and emotional threat to other students if they are involved in bullying or other unacceptable activities in school.
The growth of in-school facilities to deal with disruptive students such as cool-off areas with one-to-one tuition, where counselling is available, alongside alternative methods of delivering the curriculum and more training for staff to deal with disruptive students are all new and welcome developments. The government’s Every Child Matters agenda is helping to shape our school’s provision of learning opportunities around the needs of the young person.
But the number of fixed term exclusion is still growing, new DCSF figures for 2008 are due to be published at the end of this month, but the most recent figures show that fixed term exclusions across London from secondary schools stood at over 44,000 in 2007.
In the London Borough of Haringey where I am a secondary school governor, the number of students under the age of 16 who are on a fixed term exclusion from their secondary school is over 1,500. The situation varies for each school, but most comprehensives operate a sliding-scale for bad behaviour which finally results in exclusion, so that after a long series of small incidents or a serious one-off incident the school has the power to exclude the student permanently.
While it is the teaching professionals who make the initial decision of whether to seek a permanent or fixed-term exclusion, it is down to a school’s disciplinary committee – made up of governors – to make the final decision. This places a heavy burden on governors, who are often being asked to make difficult decisions regarding a young person’s future in a highly emotional environment.
Schools are required to compile an exhaustive and comprehensive portfolio of interviews, testimonials and reports to support the exclusion, along with details of incidents that took place and the school’s response to them. Additionally training already exists for governors who are on disciplinary committees; and both of these are important elements in ensuring fairness and equality of treatment for young people.
But, as with many issues relating to school governance, a greater coordination is required between the Local Education Authority (LEA) and members of the governing body, as well as better support and information sharing for members of the governing body.
Specifically, the involvement of the LEA in preparing for alternative arrangements for excluded students, but also in ensuring that the voice of the young person is heard properly throughout the process needs urgent attention and action.
Students should have to be present when a decision is reached by governors on their exclusion. It’s important that the voice of the young person is listened to and taken into account by governors, often young people who are vulnerable or at risk have no outlet for concerns about their situation or their future. Given the consequences of a fixed term or permanent exclusion on the prospects of a young person, it’s even more essential that they are included and heard in the decision-making process and no decision by governors should be valid unless the young person was present to hear it and have their say.
Local authorities should have to provide governors with a detailed educational plan for the young person who is being considered for exclusion. The responsibility for the education and welfare of the student rests with the local authority once the school has excluded that young person. But governors are asked to make the decision with no knowledge of what educational alternatives are available from the local authority. It should be mandatory for the LEA to provide details of what package will be put in place for the young person if they are excluded. This will help governors make better informed decisions about the consequences of their decision to exclude the young person.
While these steps are not designed to affect the number of exclusions taking place, they will ensure that governors are making informed and fairer decisions with the needs and voice of the young person being placed alongside the desires of the school and teaching staff.
DCSF Ministers should now look seriously at incorporating a stronger voice for young people alongside more information and support for governors into forthcoming legislation. As part of the government’s school’s white paper launched by Ed Balls this month, the measures announced to support governors should be developed further, working with governors and governing bodies when the white paper is put into legislation.