News

The government has said it will crack down on disruptive pupils. But where will that leave provision for the excluded? Sally Gillen gauges reaction from education specialists.

The thousands of children estimated to be targeted by bullies may have breathed a sigh of relief at the news last week that the government is to put in place tougher measures to deal with their tormentors.¹

But there are some education specialists for whom the publication of the draft guidance, which reinforces head teachers' powers to exclude pupils for first-time offences, such as carrying a weapon, and persistent and violent bullying, is less welcome.

The guidance advises independent appeal panels that it would be "inappropriate" to reinstate pupils who have been excluded for one of these offences. In the past, the panels have been the excluded pupil's way back into school,

It is a crucial change and one that some education professionals are predicting will lead to a rise in exclusions. This would conflict with the government's aim to reduce exclusions by a third, a target it met last year when the number fell to 8,400.

According to the department for education and skills, the government's anti-exclusion initiative is over and the focus is now on intervention and tackling behaviour that can lead to exclusion.

But government policy has left some people puzzled. "I am really confused as to where this has come from," says Anita Bratherton, principal officer in the National Children's Bureau's pupil inclusion unit.

But for others the guidance, which was drawn up by representatives from a range of teacher organisations including the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers, comes as no surprise.

Judith March, Enfield council's assistant director of children's services, says: "There has been a backlash from heads. For years they have been told not to exclude and they wanted the pendulum to swing the other way."

Schools are overwhelmed with government initiatives, teacher recruitment is a problem, and they feel they cannot deal with the additional problem of bullying, she adds.

There are already signs that the policy shift is affecting the figures. March says the number of exclusions in Enfield is no longer declining and colleagues working in other boroughs say the same. Although she is reluctant to predict huge rises in the number of exclusions as a result of the guidance, March says "exclusions will go up a bit", but not so much because of the guidance, more "because of the mood that is around". But she adds that tightening up the guidance will allow head teachers greater freedom to exclude.

It may be tempting for head teachers to use the guidance to remove problem pupils, says Bratherton, but she is worried it may give "head teachers carte blanche to get rid of difficult pupils".

The guidance's wording can be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, "persistent and defiant behaviour" could constitute bullying. But March asks: "What does that really mean? My four-year-old often acts in a defiant way."

The government's emphasis on tackling disruptive behaviour in schools is clear enough and further demonstrated by the creation of 1,000 on-site learning support units for disaffected pupils, which will be used by teachers to remove disruptive pupils quickly. But it conflicts with the "one strike and you're out" policy.

Significantly, along with the on-site units, the government has pledged to create another 54 pupil referral units (PRU) by September 2002. Around half of those who are permanently excluded are placed in a PRU, a local authority-provided school that provides education for children of compulsory school age who would not normally have received tuition.

One interpretation of the decision to create extra PRUs is that the government anticipates a rise in the number of exclusions, and is looking to provide enough places to accommodate them.

That prospect worries those working with children. Bratherton says: "Putting excluded pupils into pupil referral units is wrong. It means the problems these pupils have are not being dealt with, merely displaced." PRUs will become "dumping grounds", she adds.

There are also questions over the ability of PRUs to provide the same standard of education as mainstream schools. The majority of PRUs do not provide 25 hours' education or offer the same range of GCSEs as mainstream schools.

Tom Wylie, National Youth Agency chief executive, shares these concerns: "You have to ask how many hours' education the kids in the units are going to get. Some will only have two hours' schooling a day. Where are these young people if they are not at school?"

One thing is certain, the government will need to inject huge financial resources into the existing PRUs, as well as the additional 54 planned, if they are to match the education provision of mainstream schools.

The existing PRU network is hugely overburdened. A shortage of places means that many excluded children spend months on a waiting list. In many cases home tuition is provided, but the children end up not mixing with their peers, says Bratherton, adding to social exclusion. In addition, many excluded students who do not get a PRU place immediately slip through the net and drop out of education entirely.

For Bratherton any extra money would be better spent improving anti-bullying strategies within schools, which would prevent the removal of children into a system that increases their social exclusion.

The appointment of a bullying specialist within schools, part of whose job it would be to train other staff on how to deal with bullying, would be one way of addressing the problem. She points out that most newly qualified teachers do not receive advice on how to deal with bullying as part of their training.

Tackling bullying within the school setting is also advocated, perhaps surprisingly, by Dr Carrie Herbert who runs a school from her Cambridge home for children who have been bullied. A former education consultant, Herbert established the Red Balloon Learner Centre because of her experience of schools that claimed they had a good anti-bullying policy, but still had children who were bullied and were too frightened to attend the school

Despite witnessing the devastating effect that bullying has on its victims, Herbert is emphatic that exclusion is not the answer: "Bullies need help too. To shove them out will just make them more excluded."

She adds: "Many of them do not understand the impact their behaviour has had. In the case of violent children, they need help with anger management. Personal and social education should be part of the national curriculum. At the moment children receive just two hours of this a week. More time should be devoted to discussing relationships. For some children it will be the only time they will do so, as it certainly won't be a feature of their home life."

But March has a different view. While she agrees that placing excluded children in PRUs is not the solution, she says that persistent and violent bullies should be excluded because of the effect they have on other pupils. She says: "A child who is excluded often has all sorts of problems and it is not necessarily full-time education that they need. There should be a whole range of packages but they are very expensive. What is needed is involvement from other agencies, such as those in the voluntary sector."

According to barrister David Wolfe, an education law specialist, the publication of the guidance is very timely. He is currently representing three children who were excluded for violent conduct. Their cases will be heard in the court of appeal in March. The basis of their case is that the current guidance does not allow them full appeal rights. Wolfe says that with the guidance the government is "gradually eroding the appeal rights of children".

The government should be concerned about the outcome, as victory for Wolfe and his three clients would make its guidance unlawful.

^l The draft guidelines are out for consultation until 19 April and can be found at www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/excl/

Consultation on school exclusions

The government would welcome comments on:

- Incidents where permanent exclusion may be appropriate for a first or one-off offence.

- Circumstances where an appeal panel should not normally direct reinstatement.

- The exclusion from school of looked-after children.

- The exclusion of children involved in a police investigation.