School Exclusion Issues in Britain - Assignment Example

To what extent can it be argued that the law relating to school exclusions favours head teachers and governors at the expense of pupils and parents? Introduction: The school exclusions in Britain The decision to exclude permanently from a school is a serious one. It will usually be the final step in a process for dealing with disciplinary offences following a wide range of other strategies, which have been tried without success. It is an acknowledgement by the school that it has exhausted all available strategies for the child and had used it as a last resort (DCSF 2008). The same guidelines accept that there will, however, be exceptional circumstances where, in the head teacher’s judgement, it is appropriate to permanently exclude a child for a first or “one off” offence. These might include serious actual or threatened violence, sexual abuse or assault, supplying an illegal drug or carrying an offensive weapon. The fixed term exclusion is not exceeding 45 days in a school year. 1-3 day’s exclusion usually gives desired results in behaviour of the excluded student and it does not lead to adverse educational consequences. However, if new evidences come into the light the exclusion limit may be raised. The lunchtime exclusions, which are for one-half day, are also fixed term exclusions (DCSF 2008). Informal or unofficial exclusions are child and parent friendly but law does not take these into consideration. These are generally made for students who had shown good behaviour previously. The problem is solved and stigma of exclusion does not occur. The student is sent home due to improper appearance or dress code. The African-Caribbean students are sent home for hair cut. The parents of constantly disruptive students voluntarily accept to change his/her school rather than official permanent exclusion. While in internal exclusions student is allowed to remain in school premises but can not participate in school activities (Blyth & Milner 1996). The DCSF (2008) guidelines do not consider exclusion appropriate if made on minor incidents, poor academic performance, being late or truant, pregnancy, breaches of rules regarding uniforms and appearance unless persistent and for behaviour of the parent The DCSF (2000) advice schools to avoid excluding SEN students with statement except under exceptional conditions. The pupils with mental, sensory, intellectual and physical impairment should not be excluded because of challenging behaviour due to their disability. There should not be discrimination on racial grounds. The pupils in public care should be retained in school. The Head teacher’s power to exclude: The head teacher of a maintained school or the teacher in charge of a pupil referral Unit (PRU) may exclude a pupil from the school for a fixed period or permanently. To exclude permanently means removing a child from the school on disciplinary ground (Education Act (s.52) 2002). Thus the statutory power to exclude a student reside with the head teacher since the Education (No. 2) act 1986. The decision to exclude a pupil should be taken only: (a) in response to serious breaches of the school’s behaviour policy; and (b) if allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school. The headteacher should exclude a student as a last resort when all other remedies have genuinely failed (Harris et al 2000). The head teacher should regard following prior to this serious decision lest a student is unfairly excluded: Behaviour Policy; School’s Drug Policy; Schools Equal Opportunities Policy, Human Rights Act 1998;Disability Discrimination Act 1995; Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice; Race Relations Act 1976 as amended by Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.(DCSF 2008) The headteacher should ensure that the exclusion is not imposed in the heat of the moment unless there is an immediate threat to safety. He should take statements from witnesses and see the possible provocation. He may also take other persons’ opinion to see his action in unbiased manner. The standard of proof against the misbehaviour of student is necessary and more serious the allegation, more convincing has to be the proof (DCSF 2008). The same guidelines also state that exclusion for a bad behaviour outside school should have link to school related activities or it should affect maintaining good behaviour among students. The head teacher should inform the parent, about the exclusion, by telephone followed by a letter within one school day. It is necessary for exclusions of less than 6 days where no public exam is missed, exclusion for 6-15 days where public exams are missed, lunch time and permanent exclusions. The LEA and the governing body should also be informed in order to deal with the representation by a parent, if made (DCSF 2008). Data on exclusion and its analysis: The statistical first release for year 2006/07 (SFR 21/07) shows 8,680 permanent exclusions from primary, secondary and all special schools , which represents 0.12 per cent of the number of pupils in schools i.e.12 pupils in every 10,000 were excluded permanently. The same SFR showed 363,270 fixed period exclusions from state funded secondary schools, 45,730 fixed period exclusions from primary schools and 16,600 fixed period exclusions from special schools. The report revealed that exclusion of boys surpassed that of girls in all the three types of school and they were excluded at much younger age also. The boys excluded nearly four times more permanently than the girls. Similarly the fixed period exclusion for boys was also three times higher than that of girls. The boys are excluded at younger age than girls as very few girls are excluded at primary level. The maximum exclusion for both boys and girls occurred at the age 13-14 years, which constituted 50% of all exclusions. Pupils with SEN are three times more likely to be excluded permanently while fixed period exclusions are 32% for SEN pupils, with or without statements. Though the population size is also small for these so the figure may seem exaggerated. Circular 47/06 says that children with additional learning needs are “at greater risk of disengagement from school”. It explains how schools should monitor the impact of policies (ACE 2006) The official figures are only tip of the iceberg. There are much more exclusions most of these go unreported because these are not made official. Pupils at risk of exclusion thus are secondary age group, boys (especially African-Caribbean origin), SEN and those in public care. The 30 and 21% permanent and fixed period exclusions, respectively, were for disruptive behaviour. While 11 and 23% of the same exclusions were on account for verbal abuse/threatening against an adult (SFR 21/07). The Dfes (2008) feels that attendance is closely linked to the achievement of a student. The persistent absentees (absent for 20% or more school time) are likely to continue in school after 16 years of age. They also engage more in antisocial behaviour. The school education attendance policy should implement every child matters and school standards to overcome absentees problem.. Implications of human rights act on exclusion: The HRA 1998 Article 2 of protocol 1 (A2P1) states that no one shall be denied the right to education. The act applies to elementary as well as higher education, It seeks the accountability of education provider and respects the choice and involvement of parents. The act provides for democratic set up of educational institutions such as right to appeal and other redress mechanisms. Under A2P1, the right to education, it is the state’s duty to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions and also discipline. (Harvey 2005). Article 3 HRA 1998 passed at the UN convention states that ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment’ and it applies to exclusion as well. The UN convention states primary consideration to be the best interest of the child. But when a child is threatened with exclusion how could his/her best interests prevail, these are the best interest of school management and teaching staff. The best interest is not made part of the education acts. The children Act 1989 states that a child’s welfare is paramount consideration in his/her upbringing. The children act 1989 article 12 states that a child’s views should be weighed and given due importance according to his/her maturity. But the SSFA 1998 does not allow a child less than 18 years to make his/her own representation. Both the children act 1989 and HRA 1998 state that school discipline should be consistent with the dignity of child and should not be degrading. While corporal punishment is not unlawful in UK it interferes with A2P1 (Harris et al 2000). Exclusion appeal rights: When parents find decisions in conflict with their wishes, they can redress the exclusion of their child in three ways. These are complaint, review and appeal. It is usually the duty of decision-makers to inform parents of their specific rights to redress ( Harris et al. 2000). ACE (2006) advises parents what to do if their child is excluded permanently. They can make appeal to the discipline committee (Governing body) and, if that does not succeed, to the independent appeal body. The parents should update themselves to school behaviour rules. They should also talk to their ward immediately to know the exact happenings. Also check what the headteacher says and whether the rules and procedure was correctly followed. Mark anything out of place. According to the DCSF (2008), the governing body nominates 3-5 members in the discipline committee. Any governor with knowledge of the incident or a relation with the student should step down. A clerk puts down the proceedings of the meeting. There is no time limit to convene the meeting for fixed exclusions for 5 days or less including lunchtime exclusions. For fixed time exclusions for 5-15 days including the lunch time exclusions the meeting should convene between 6th to 30th school day. For permanent exclusions and those beyond 15 days including the lunchtime exclusions the meeting should take place between 6th to 15th school day. The time of meeting starts from the date of receipt of parent’s representation. The discipline committee meetings are attended by the parent, the headteacher, the pupil on parent’s request, LEA, social worker if child is in public care. They all present their statements. Then the committee takes the decision alone. The child may be reinstated where it is practical. The outcome of meeting is informed to all parties within one school day of decision. The next step is independent appeal for permanent exclusion. It is arranged by LEA with the county solicitor and within 15 days of receipt of parent’s appeal. This has three members. The chair should be a lay person who has not worked in a school. One member is with experience as school governor and one member should have experience as a headteacher. The headteacher, chair of governing body, parent, pupil if above 18 years, a legal representative of governing body, pupils less than 18 years if parent agrees attend the meeting. The independent appeal committee considers the written statements including the school report. It decides whether the decision complied with law and that there are sufficient evidences to show that student really committed what is alleged. The independent appeal committee can order reinstatement or approve exclusion. Even if student is reinstated, his/her school record still retains the details of exclusion. It however may be appended on parent’s request (DCSF 2008). . Data on exclusion appeals and its analysis: SFR 21/07 has found 1060 appeals by parents in 2006/07 against permanent exclusion which shows a 3% decrease from last year. Of the appeals heard 24.1 determined in favour of parents which is an increase of nearly three percent from last year. About these 56% of these directed reinstatement of the pupil. The parents’ should take care that the excluded student is not seen in the school premises except for disciplinary committee hearing etc. The increase in reinstatement is not substantially high so neither the headteacher’s authority is being undermined nor it gives any reason for parents to lack trust in the system. The data simply show that just as a parent may feel that his/her ward has not committed that big a problem, the headmaster too may seemingly exaggerate the meaning of behaviour of a student at times, which is fairly normal. Under the SSFA 1998 the governing body should meet to examine the causes of exclusion for more than five days. It is actually a crucial stage since outcome of governing body meeting would apprise parents the value of review. But most parent do not exercise their right to appeal to the governing body and those who do few get head teacher’s decision overturned. The more number of appeals by parents is likely to change the picture. Re-Inclusion is reintegration? Reintegration aims to continue pupil’s education without disruption. In permanent exclusions the work is sent home for the pupil for first 5 days. The LEA help pupil get enrolled in a new school at the earliest. Parenting contracts are helpful to reintegrate students into school system (Harris et al. 2000). However such contracts are based on willingness of parents and can not be forced upon. .(DCSF 2008). Proper schooling without discrimination is necessary since there is largest increase in the population of under 16s and so is the ethnic diversity. Social equality reduces violence, conflicts, insecurity and political instability. As an indicator of inequality take NEET- not being in employment or education for six or more months between the age 16 to 18. It shows why some youngsters make less successful transition to adulthood. (Equality reviews 2007) After exclusion 27.2% primary and 14.8 % secondary school students return to mainstream schools. The figure may be underestimated but even if less than 50% return to mainstream schooling, there would be serious implication on the young people themselves and the community and society they will join as adults.(OFSTED 1996 as cited in Parsons1999). Most of the excluded pupils join PRU. What type of skills they may develop. Will it be sufficient for success as an adult ?, remains unclear though since the compulsory schooling is missed for future well being of an individual (Parsons 1999). Law Vs government’s policy on inclusion: Prior to the Education Act 1993, there were three types of exclusions, indefinite, fixed term and permanent. But the indefinite exclusions created uncertainty for student and parent both as it extended upto 80 days in a school year. The government showed its concern and abolished such indefinite exclusions. The 1993 act also restricted fixed term exclusion to 15 days in a school year (Harris et al. 2000). The same act also provided that in case of permanent exclusion, the school would lose the funding of that student from his exclusion. While the school receiving such a child will also receive the funding of that child. OFSTED (1993a as cited in Harris et al. 2000) reported that exclusion of black pupils was significantly over-represented. The government further issued a circular stating that schools certainly can exercise power of exclusion in extreme cases but should have restrain otherwise (DFE, 1994b as cited in Harris et al. 2000). The government included in the School standards and framework (SSFA) 1998 to support the student solve his/her problems when he/she returns back to school and avoid permanent exclusion. Under this act the LEA was also told to draw a behaviour support plan for the students (Harris et al. 2000). As long as the student remains on the roll, his education should continue irrespective of term of exclusion. The permanently excluded student will remain on roll till disposal of his/her appeals.(DCFS 2008). Conclusion: The discussion above states that though the parents have adequate rights to appeal against the exclusion of their ward from school and that the LEA helps a pupil to continue study without interruption, following two points somewhat tilt the matter in favour of school authorities: 1. The provisions of human right act 1998 and children act 1989, which clearly emphasise dignity to a human and that all decisions should be in the best interest of the child, are not the part of UK’s Education acts. As a result version of a child below 18 can not be given weight and importance in such a matter related to his/her future. 2. Blyth and Milner (1996) feel that the trend for consumerism and free market like competition has forced school to retain and encourage academically bright and regular attendees while excluding ‘problem’ students. They lose the finances of excluded student but make up more than that by attracting good students because of good reputation. Thus schools are following a ‘back door’ sort of selection. References: ACE. 2006.Permanent Exclusions. 25 December 2008, http://www.ace-ed.org.uk/advice/booklets/PermanentExclusionWales.html Blyth, E & Milner, J 1996, Exclusion from School: Inter-professional Issues for Policy and Practice. Routledge Harris, N S, Eden, K & Blair, A 2000, Challenges to School Exclusion: Exclusion, Appeals, and the Law. Routledge, Harvey, C.J. 2005. Human Rights in the Community: Rights as Agents for Change. Hart Publishing Parsons, C 1999. Education, Exclusion and Citizenship. Routledge DfES. 2008.Improving Behaviour and Attendance. Available at http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/secondary/keystage3/issues/behaviour/focus/attendance_manual/ Education Act 2002. 27 December 2008, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020032_en_1 DCSF 2008, Exclusions Guidance, 28 December 2008, http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/behaviour/exclusion/ The Equalities Review 2007, Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review. 26 December 2008. http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalitiesreview/ Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions (SFR21/07). 27 December 2008, http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000733/SFR21-2007.pdf Read More