Elton (1989)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Contents, Foreword, Membership, Summary
Recommendations
Chapter 1 The enquiry
Chapter 2 The nature of the problem
Chapter 3 Teachers
Chapter 4 Schools
Chapter 5 Parents
Chapter 6 Pupils
Chapter 7 Attendance
Chapter 8 Police
Chapter 9 Governors
Chapter 10 Local education authorities
Chapter 11 Government
Appendix A Written evidence received
Appendix B Witnesses
Appendix C Visits
Appendix D(i) Teachers and Discipline Part I
Appendix D(ii) Teachers and Discipline Part II
Appendix E Selected bibliography
Appendix F Behaviour policies

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1989
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 6 Pupils
[pages 142 - 164]

1 Pupils are not passive receivers of education. They have to participate in their own learning. In the schools we visited we were impressed by the pupils we met. With few exceptions their behaviour was admirable. Its quality was not always recognised by some of the teachers. We formed the strong impression that there was more scope for pupils to take responsibility for their work and for the standards of their behaviour than was given them in many of the schools.

2 Pupils do not appear in our terms of reference among those to whom we are asked to direct recommendations. But we consider that they have a full part to play in achieving and maintaining high standards of behaviour.

RESPONSIBLE PUPILS

3 We have suggested that pupils learn more in school than they are taught. They also learn from messages carried by the way in which the school is run and the relationships between people in it. Our impression is that, in schools with a negative atmosphere, pupils learn to see themselves as irresponsible beings who must be contained and controlled at all times. Our evidence suggests that pupils tend to live up, or down, to teachers' expectations.

4 Both Rutter and Mortimore found that schools which gave pupils positive responsibilities tended to achieve better standards of behaviour. Rutter found better behaviour in secondary schools in which higher proportions of pupils held positions of responsibility such as form captain. He also found better behaviour in schools where pupils were responsible for caring for their own learning materials, such as books and folders. Mortimore found better behaviour in junior schools where pupils were responsible for managing their own work within clear guidelines set by the teachers. These findings suggest that pupils are likely to react to being given responsibilities by behaving more responsibly.

5 Parents know that there are considerable differences between the ways in which five and 10 year olds see themselves. The differences in self- image between 11 and 15 year olds is even greater. Many older secondary pupils are very conscious of their developing adult status. They may even be regarded as 'adults' by their families because of out of school responsibilities such as looking after younger brothers and sisters. This does not always sit easily with their subordinate status in school. It is clear from our survey that secondary teachers consider that 14 and 15 year old pupils are the most difficult to deal with. There are a variety of reasons for this. It has been suggested to us that one may be the failure of some schools to link responsibilities and privileges with pupils' ages and developing maturity.

6 In chapters three, four and five we emphasise the need for adults to model responsible behaviour for children. The models of behaviour provided by older pupils to younger ones may well be as powerful an influence. We believe that schools should encourage older pupils to take up the responsibility of setting a good example for the rest of the school. In the secondary sector this has traditionally been seen as the function of sixth forms. They have been given duties and privileges to go with their responsibilities. Where sixth forms exist, we believe that they should continue to be encouraged to play the part of pupil leaders. We also consider that, in every secondary school, fourth and fifth year pupils [now Years 10 and 11] should be expected and encouraged to take on more adult and responsible roles. Similarly in primary schools, every opportunity should be given for older children to set a good example to younger ones and to look after new entrants.

7 Our evidence suggests that schools can promote better behaviour among their pupils by giving them more responsibilities. We consider that these responsibilities extend beyond pupils' own learning to active participation in managing the school community. We believe that schools would find it particularly beneficial to match levels of responsibility and privilege to the ages of their pupils.

8 We therefore recommend that headteachers and teachers should give pupils every opportunity to take responsibilities and to make a full contribution to improving behaviour in schools. (R75)

School councils

9 In chapter four we emphasise the importance of giving pupils a clear understanding of the institution's behaviour policy. There is also scope for pupil participation in this area. We visited a number of secondary schools which had school councils. School councils are forums for discussion between teachers and pupils, or sometimes between pupils with teachers' participation being introduced at a later stage. The normal arrangement is for each tutor group to elect a council representative. It was clear from the schools we visited which had such councils that rules and behaviour were among the issues regularly discussed. We consider that the main advantage of school councils is that pupils are able to discuss school policies openly and make positive suggestions. This encourages a sense of collective responsibility. Our impression is that, where they exist, pupils are likely to make responsible use of them. We would, however, discourage the creation of token councils. If it becomes clear to pupils that staff are taking no notice of their views, the council is likely to become a liability rather than an asset. Setting up a council that works involves a commitment by staff to listen to what pupils are saying and to take their views seriously. We believe that commitment is worth making. We therefore recommend that headteachers and teachers should encourage the active participation of pupils in shaping and reviewing the school's behaviour policy in order to foster a sense of collective commitment to it. This may be achieved in secondary schools by, for example, the use of school councils. (R76)

Mediation

10 We were interested to hear from some of our expert witnesses about mediation schemes which have been introduced in some high schools in the United States and to meet those involved in a scheme of this kind in one New York school. Under these schemes, pupils of secondary age are invited to volunteer for training as mediators. Fellow pupils can ask their trained mediators to help resolve disputes which arise between them. Headteachers of schools with mediation schemes have reported that they have led to lower exclusion rates for fighting, lower drop-out and truancy rates and an improved school atmosphere. As yet little work has been done here in developing such schemes, although we heard of some training which aims to help teachers to resolve classroom conflicts. At this early stage it is not clear how mediation techniques can best be applied in this country to help promote good discipline. However, we believe they could be valuable.

MOTIVATING PUPILS

11 Our survey indicates that older boys of below average ability are the pupils whom teachers find most difficult. This confirms the picture presented by our other evidence and by research. In chapter four we discuss the effects of academic failure on pupils' self-esteem. Research suggests that boys and girls are likely to respond differently to such failure. Girls tend to blame themselves. Boys are more likely to blame or reject the system. Some researchers identify 'anti-school' groups which attract lower achieving boys. Our expert witness from Japan described a broadly similar phenomenon in schools there. One explanation offered by researchers is that many boys counter the threat that academic failure poses to their self-esteem by looking for alternative sources of status. This may mean trying to impress their friends, whose attitude to school is likely to be similar, by work avoidance or disruptive behaviour.

12 Schools can counteract the development of these disaffected groups in several ways. They can try to deter their bad behaviour simply by punishing it. Although punishment will be necessary in many cases, it is unlikely to reduce the problem by itself. In chapter four we suggest that schools which rely too heavily on punishments to deter bad behaviour are likely to experience more of it. This is particularly true when dealing with 'anti-school' groups whose members gain status by being punished. A second approach is to improve the motivation of such pupils by increasing the scope for non-academic achievement in school and for its recognition. We consider that this, combined with a clear school behaviour policy, is likely to be much more effective.

13 In chapter four we suggest various ways in which non-academic achievement can be recognised. We believe that four national initiatives are likely to be particularly helpful in extending opportunities for such recognition. They are: the development of records of achievement (ROA); the promotion of work experience; the development of compacts between pupils and employers; and voluntary community service as part of the school curriculum.

Records of achievement

14 The aim of ROA is to give credit to pupils for the full range of their achievements in school, academic and otherwise. Education Support Grants (ESGs) are currently funding development work on ROA pilot schemes involving 22 LEAs. These schemes have been looking at ways of recording achievements in areas such as working with others (eg group projects, working with old people or young children), reliability (eg attendance, punctuality) and personal commitment (eg persistence). ROA will enable young people to present employers with a document which gives a much fuller picture of their personal qualities than that provided by examination grades alone. Employers in the pilot schemes have expressed enthusiasm for the concept since they recognise the importance of non-academic achievement and personal qualities. We welcome the government's support and urge all LEAs to work towards establishing ROA systems for all secondary pupils by 1990. We recommend:

14.1 that the Secretaries of State, LEAs and schools should ensure that records of achievement give due weight to a wide range of achievements and personal qualities; (R77) and

14.2 that employers should give balanced consideration to the full range of a young person's achievements when appointing school leavers. This will maximise the credibility of the ROA with pupils. (R78)

15 The government's aim is for all pupils to have had at least two weeks work experience by the time they leave school. We believe that work experience is an important part of education for the responsibilities of adulthood. Our impression is that pupils respond well to it. For some lower achieving pupils their work experience report may be the best that they ever receive during their school career. It can change their view of themselves, and their teachers' view of them. In the future, work experience reports will probably contribute to pupils' ROA. This is likely to be a part of the ROA that potential employers will take particularly seriously. Work experience must, of course, be used properly by schools. We have some evidence that a few difficult fifth year pupils [now Year 11] are sent out for 'extended' work experience which has limited educational value. This is bad practice which discredits work experience schemes. We believe that this is rare and that the vast majority of work experience schemes, whether they are run by individual schools or by LEAs or voluntary organisations such as the Trident Trust, are based on sound principles. We welcome the government's initiative and urge LEAs and employers to continue to work together to develop the range and quality of work experience.

Compacts

16 Compacts provide individual pupils with clear performance targets. Ideally pupils should be guaranteed a job, or training leading to a job, if they are able to achieve agreed standards of work, behaviour and attendance. Alternatively, employers may only offer a priority interview. The first compact scheme in Britain was set up in East London in 1987. The government has recently provided development funding for 30 more inner city compact proposals in England and Scotland through the Department of Employment's Training Agency, with a view to funding successful development projects from early 1989. The preliminary evaluation reported by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools (HMI) on the first year of the East London compact suggests that some real improvements in pupil motivation are being achieved. HMI point to improvements in pupils' attendance and punctuality in the schools involved in compacts. The ILEA reports an increase in the number of pupils from these schools continuing their education beyond the age of 16. We welcome the compact initiative and the government's support for it. Although the full value of compacts has yet to be proved, we believe that they have real potential for improving standards of behaviour and attendance. We consider that compacts may be particularly useful for schools in the most economically disadvantaged areas of the country. Pupils need to be assured that employers will deliver their end of the bargain or compacts will be discredited. The reduction in the number of school leavers in the near future will increase employers' incentive to do so. We recommend that schools, LEAs and employers should increase their cooperation in developing means of increasing pupils' motivation, such as compacts. (R79)

PUPILS AT RISK

17 Our evidence indicates that certain pupils are more likely to present behaviour or attendance problems than others. In the case of attendance, the picture of the pupil most at risk seems fairly clear - a low achiever from a severely disadvantaged home background. In the case of seriously disruptive behaviour, the picture of the pupil most likely to be involved seems less clear in terms of his or her material circumstances, such as quality of housing and family income. Some other characteristics can, however, be identified. Our survey and other evidence, such as LEA exclusion statistics, indicate that boys are about four times more likely to be involved than girls. They are likely to be rated as of below average ability by their teachers and to have a history of low achievement at school. They are also likely to come from highly stressed family backgrounds.

18 Such 'risk profiles' must be treated with great caution. We emphasise the importance of teachers' expectations as an influence on pupils' behaviour throughout this report. Low expectations as an influence can be self-fulfilling prophecies. We believe that it is crucial for teachers and other readers of this report to be wary of stereotypes. The statistical associations between, say, particular types of family background and ways of behaving cannot and should not be used to predict the behaviour of any individual pupil. Even where the 'risk profile' is fairly clear, as it is with non-attenders, it must be remembered that it is only a minority of pupils from such backgrounds who will become persistent absentees. Teachers should always expect the best of their pupils.

19 'Risk profiles' are dangerous tools, but they help to sharpen teachers' awareness of potential problems. Waiting until patterns of bad behaviour or non-attendance are well established before taking any kind of remedial action may be too late. Our evidence suggests possibilities for preventive action early in children's educational careers before such patterns are set.

20 In chapter four we suggest that some pupils may be behaving badly because they have particular needs such as learning difficulties, which are not being met. Schools and individual teachers also need early warning and guidance on the nature of potential learning and behaviour problems which new pupils are likely to present. We consider it essential for a record of pupils' progress, and learning and pastoral needs, to be established from their first days in school and to be transferred with them when they change schools. It is not unusual for pupils to change from one LEA to another during their school careers. We therefore welcome the recent DES consultative document Regulations on the Keeping and Disclosure of Pupil Records which proposed that schools should be required to keep records of the educational progress of their pupils, and transfer such records on request when a pupil moves to another school. We recommend that pupil records should cover their pastoral as well as their learning needs and that they should be in a format which could be adopted by schools and LEAs throughout England and Wales. (R80)

21 In its evidence to us the Association of Chief Education Social Workers, representing principal education welfare officers, included a request to primary heads to give education welfare officers early warning of persistent behaviour or attendance problems developing in younger pupils. We support this request. We emphasise the importance of education welfare officers in establishing links between home and school in chapter four. They maintain long term contacts with families in difficulty. The earlier in a child's school career that these contacts can be established the better.

22 It has been suggested to us that providing more pre-school or nursery education might help to improve children's behaviour in school. There is no conclusive evidence to show that an overall expansion in this kind of provision would produce general improvements in behaviour. There is, however, evidence from the USA suggesting that it can improve the behaviour of certain children who are 'at risk'. Large scale evaluations of pre-school education programmes for children from severely disadvantaged backgrounds indicate that such children are more likely to develop a positive self-image and to succeed at school if they have pre- school education than if they do not. Local authorities should therefore ensure that enough provision is available to meet the needs of such children. DES and Welsh Office statistics for 1988 show large variations between LEAs in the provision that they make for pupils under five in nursery and primary schools, ranging from 8% to 89% of the relevant population. We are aware that there are other ways of providing pre- school education such as day nurseries or playgroups, but almost all require some kind of local authority support. We therefore recommend that all local authorities should ensure that adequate provision for pre- school education for severely disadvantaged children is available in their areas. (R81)

23 We were particularly interested in two voluntary projects dealing with children 'at risk' in primary schools. Catch 'em Young is a scheme which concentrates on pupils who behave badly in their final year of primary school. It aims to improve their ability to cooperate with other children and adults and their sense of social responsibility by providing them with a series of closely supervised 'outward bound' experiences in which senior secondary pupils play an important role. Courses are held at an outdoor education centre in North Yorkshire. The project started in 1986 and is currently being evaluated for the DES.

24 The Muppet Club based in Hounslow, West London, also aims to promote children's readiness for secondary school by developing their ability to relate to others. The project deals with eight and nine year old children - a younger age group than the 'Catch 'em Young' scheme. Its methods are based on group therapy. Children 'at risk' are identified by primary teachers. They are invited to join a group or 'Muppet Club' led by trained volunteers which carries out cooperative projects and activities such as crafts, drama or games. The project started in 1978. The progress of Muppet Club 'graduates' has been monitored and compared with a control group of children with similar risk profiles. Results seem to show that the incidence of behaviour and attendance problems was much lower among the 'graduates' than among the control group.

25 These projects sound promising. There may well be other organisations of this kind which have not submitted evidence to us. We recommend that the government should evaluate preventive schemes aimed at primary age children with a view to encouraging the development of such schemes if they are found to be effective. (R82)

PUPILS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

26 The Education Act 1981 defines special educational needs as learning difficulties or disabilities which require special educational provision to be made. LEAs are required to assess such children's needs, taking educational, psychological and medical advice and evidence from parents and other sources into account. The purpose of assessment under the 1981 Act is to identify a child's special educational needs and any educational provision which may be required to meet them. Where, following such an assessment, the LEA decides to determine the special educational provision that should be made for a child, it is required to make and maintain a statement of the child's special educational needs specifying those needs and the educational provision to be made to meet them. Such provision can be made in ordinary schools or in units, for example through additional staff or equipment, or by transferring the child to a special school. It is estimated that, at any given time, about 20% of the pupil population have special educational needs and about 2% have statements.

27 Our interpretation of the Enquiry's terms of reference was that it should concentrate on mainstream schools. We have not therefore considered the question of pupils' behaviour in special schools. Our terms of reference do however include the relationship between pupils' behaviour in mainstream schools and provision for special educational needs.

28 Our evidence draws attention to two issues in this area. The first relates to the assessment of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The second is about pupils whose disruptive behaviour may be a response to their own learning difficulties.

29 A small minority of pupils have such severe and persistent behaviour problems as a result of emotional, psychological or neurological disturbance that their needs cannot be met in mainstream schools. In such cases the way forward is for the LEA to assess the pupil's needs and produce a statement which confirms that the pupil has emotional and behavioural difficulties and specifies the alternative provision to be made for that pupil elsewhere.

30 We recognise that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between 'ordinary' bad behaviour and disturbed behaviour, but the distinction has to be made. Children with emotional and behavioural difficulties tend to present behaviour problems earlier in their school careers than other 'difficult' pupils, and to behave in a disturbed and disturbing way regardless of which class or teacher they are with. The problems they present also tend to be more severe, judgements must be made by teachers, educational psychologists and other professionals in individual cases. This is one of the purposes of the assessment process.

31 We have been alerted to two problems relating to assessments involving emotional and behavioural difficulties. First, provision in special schools for pupils with special needs tends to be expensive. LEAs have many competing priorities for expenditure. We have been told that at least one LEA does not recognise emotional and behavioural difficulties as a reason for making special provision because it is not considered to be specifically a learning difficulty. We consider this to be unacceptable, not least because we regard social learning, as well as academic learning, to be a necessary concern of schools. It is clear from our evidence that some children exhibit such disturbed patterns of behaviour that they cannot benefit properly from mainstream schooling. It is also clear that they can disrupt the education of other children.

32 The second problem seems more widespread. Evidence presented to the House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee (ESAC), in the course of a review it undertook in 1986/87 of the workings of the Education Act 1981, registered strong concern about the length of time involved in the assessment and statementing process for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties in some LEAs. Our impression is that there has been no significant improvement since the ESAC report. We have been told that it is not uncommon for the process to take a year or more. The effects of such delays, in causing 'anxiety and paranoid feelings' among the individual pupils and the schools involved, were graphically described to ESAC. A similar experience was described to us by the headteacher of one of the schools we visited. We recognise that the rapid assessment of special needs is generally desirable. We consider that the need for prompt action is particularly pressing in cases involving emotional and behavioural difficulties. We also recognise, however, that placing a child on a waiting list for assessment of emotional and behavioural difficulties does not relieve the school of the responsibility of acting as constructively as it can while it awaits advice from outside. LEAs must take account of the effect on other pupils and staff of the continuing presence in school of a child who may be both profoundly disturbed and profoundly disturbing.

33 The role of educational psychologists is central to assessment and statementing. We have been told that their availability is a key factor in determining the time taken by these processes in different LEAs. The statistics for 1987/88 published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) show large variations in the number of educational psychologists employed by different LEAs. The ratio of educational psychologists to pupils aged five to 16 ranges from about 1:2500 to about 1:8000. The average is about 1:4500. CIPFA figures do not, of course, show how effectively staff are used, but it seems probable to us that schools in LEAs towards the bottom of the range are more likely to experience delays in the statementing process than those in LEAs with average provision.

34 We discuss the well established link between disruptive behaviour and low academic achievement in chapter four. We have pointed out that some pupils are lower achievers because they lack the motivation to work and others because they lack the ability to make progress. In many cases both factors apply and may reinforce one another. Our evidence suggests that more attention should be given to the educational needs of pupils who behave badly. We visited two secondary schools with support teachers whose jobs include working with such pupils. One of these teachers commented to us that he spent a high proportion of his time helping pupils with academic work rather than managing their behaviour. It was clear to him that some at least of these pupils had real learning difficulties and that their disruptive behaviour was partly provoked by the frustration these caused. This impression is supported by studies of pupils excluded from secondary schools which have found that a significant proportion of them are of well below average ability. It has been suggested to us that some of these pupils may have special educational needs, other than emotional and behavioural difficulties, which have not been identified because teachers have explained their lack of progress in terms of laziness or bad behaviour rather than learning difficulties. The danger of neglecting learning needs is particularly acute if a pupil has been stereotyped as 'disruptive'.

35 The draft circular issued recently by the DES, Department of Health and Welsh Office to replace DES Circular 1/83 and Welsh Office Circular 5/83 gave new advice to LEAs on the implementation of the Education Act 1981. The draft circulars say that each Secretary of State 'expects that statements should be processed within six months and that only in exceptional circumstances should it take longer than this'. We fully endorse the six month target for cases involving emotional and behavioural difficulties.

36 We recommend that all LEAs and schools should ensure that the special educational needs of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties are assessed and met. (R83)

37 We recommend that LEAs should set and maintain an establishment of educational psychologists adequate to achieve the target of six months for the processing of statements of special educational needs specified in the draft circulars recently issued by the DES, Department of Health and Welsh Office to replace DES Circular 1/83 and Welsh Office Circular 5/83. (R84)

38 We recommend that LEAs and schools should ensure that the learning needs of pupils involved in disruptive behaviour who may not be suffering from emotional and behavioural difficulties are properly identified as part of any plan for remedial action. (R85) This may involve assessment of special educational needs in some cases.

PROVISION FOR THE MOST DIFFICULT PUPILS

39 We suggest throughout this report that ordinary schools should do all in their power to retain and educate all the pupils on their roll on-site. However, we recognise that in the case of a small number of pupils this may be difficult, and in some cases impossible. Mainstream teachers may not be able to find the time, if unassisted, to handle the frequent disruption such pupils may cause; and in some cases may not have the skill to do this. The behaviour of these difficult pupils can also have a serious effect on the progress of other pupils. Even the most skilled teachers may find themselves having to spend most of a lesson trying to maintain order.

40 We asked every LEA about the provision it made for those pupils whose behaviour teachers found most difficult to manage and for their schools. Most of the LEAs submitting evidence outlined their provision. Many pointed out that their education welfare officers and educational psychologists had an important role to play in supporting teachers, pupils and parents. All have some form of special provision for such pupils which consists of two or more of the following resources:

40.1 special schools catering for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, access to places in special schools run by other LEAs, or access to places in independent special schools;

40.2 units which are not part of mainstream schools for pupils who may or may not have statements of special needs. These are called off-site units. Pupils are transferred to them on either a temporary or a permanent basis;

40.3 units which are part of mainstream schools. These are called on- site units. Pupils are transferred to them on a temporary basis usually, and sometimes for part of their timetable only; and

40.4 support teams of specialist teachers working with such pupils in mainstream schools.

42 Although no national figures are available, our evidence suggests that the quantity of provision, in terms of the number of pupils supported in the mainstream or placed in special units or schools, is fairly consistent between different LEAs. The range seems to be from about 0.2% to about 0.5% of the mainstream school population, with 0.3% as the most commonly occurring figure.

43 The case for particular types of alternative provision for most children with statements of special educational needs specifying emotional and behavioural difficulties is clear. The rest of this section deals only with those pupils who do not fall within this category. We need to consider what can be done to help these pupils and their schools.

44 A number of submissions that we received suggest that one answer to the problem of disruptive behaviour would be to increase the number of places in units. We are cautious about this suggestion. We recognise the argument that units, by removing difficult pupils from general circulation in school, may be able to help other pupils to make progress without constant disruption. But in fact the relationship between the availability of unit places and general standards of behaviour in schools is obscure. Since the 1970s the number of special units has increased dramatically. It has been estimated that their number has more than quadrupled since 1977 (Graham 1988). Our evidence does not suggest that this has been accompanied by any noticeable improvement in standards of behaviour. A study of exclusions from schools in Sheffield found that setting up on-site units had no significant effect on the exclusion rates of the schools at which they were established (Galloway 1982). This does not suggest that general standards of behaviour in the schools with units had been improved. The Sheffield sample was small, and the study looked at exclusions and the units themselves rather than behaviour in ordinary classrooms. We would not wish to put too much weight on it. But it is a useful warning against seeing units as offering a simple solution in themselves.

45 The evidence presented to us on the quality of special units was conflicting. Some on-site units are well integrated with the schools to which they belong, while others have little contact with the mainstream. We visited two off-site units which were known to be making good provision for the pupils placed there. Others were represented to us as being much less satisfactory. We are concerned to find that both on-site and off-site units are often working under great difficulties. The pupils who come to them often believe that they have been treated badly by ordinary schools, and they feel rejected and resentful. Their educational needs and their degree of maturity are often very different. They stay in the units for different lengths of time. Some of these pupils never return to ordinary schools, but remain in limbo until the end of compulsory schooling. We consider that the aim in almost every case should be to return the pupil to a mainstream school as soon as possible. We recognise, however, that this can be very difficult in practice, particularly in the case of pupils in off-site units.

46 We realise that there will always be a need for some forms of alternative provision for pupils who reach a stage at which they cannot constructively be educated in ordinary schools, either because of their own difficulties or the difficulties they cause for other pupils. LEAs have, for example, to provide education for pupils who have been permanently excluded from schools. Reintegration into the mainstream may not always be a practical possibility, particularly in the case of older secondary pupils.

47 The main advantage of units is that the small numbers of pupils in them can get close attention from teachers, and time can be spent in improving their attitudes and motivation. But there are disadvantages in terms of the curriculum. Although pupils in on-site units may in theory have access to a full curriculum, this is seldom so in practice. Off- site units are usually far too small to provide a full curriculum. To do so, they would need extra resources on a very large scale. These curricular disadvantages will become more serious when the National Curriculum is introduced, and will increase the difficulty of achieving a return to mainstream schooling. The future prospects of pupils remaining in units are often limited. Some units nevertheless manage to work successfully with the pupils who are sent to them but it seems to require very great skills on the part of the teachers in them. Because these units are isolated from the system as a whole, those skills are seldom passed on to other teachers.

48 Almost all the alternative provision made by LEAs is very expensive in terms of cost per pupil. There was little indication from our evidence that the balance between the costs and benefits of various forms of provision are being analysed. We consider that LEAs should carry out such analysis which should take account of educational as well as financial considerations. These would include the needs of schools, teachers and the majority of pupils, those of the minority for whom alternative provision is made and the quality of the system as a whole.

49 We consider that the balance of advantage lies with the development of LEA support teams. We envisage such teams helping teachers in ordinary schools in a variety of ways to improve their skills in dealing with pupils who present them with difficulties. Such help might take the form of individual discussions with teachers and with pupils to provide diagnosis of specific difficulties and suggest action; 'support teaching', where a teacher from the support team teaches a group together with a teacher from the school; mobilising other agencies such as the education welfare officer and the educational psychologist; helping pastoral staff, for example with case conferences; facilitating peer support groups; providing other forms of in-service training, such as training in developing teachers' group management skills; and acting as consultants on matters related to behaviour and discipline.

50 We saw one support team in action which had been recently set up. It was already doing good work with some pupils, but needed more status to have more than a marginal influence on the schools it served.

51 Where schools have, or wish to set up, on-site units, a support team of the kind we envisage would be a particularly valuable resource. Such units need a clear rationale, clear criteria for referral, accurate diagnosis of the learning and behavioural difficulties of each pupil, a programme devised to meet these difficulties, and clear targets for the early reintegration of each pupil into mainstream classes. Above all, their quality and success rates need close and careful monitoring by the headteacher and the governors. Support teams would be well placed to help with all these matters.

52 Where LEAs have support teams, or decide to set them up, it is essential that the team leader should have sufficient status to work effectively with the heads of large secondary schools. The teachers staffing such teams will need to be of appropriate calibre and capable of dealing tactfully and effectively with children in difficulties and also with teachers in ordinary schools who need their help but may feel defensive about seeking it. They will need very considerable skills, not least those of counselling, negotiation and in-service training. Team leaders and members should expect to be seconded from ordinary schools for a period and to return with enhanced career prospects. The work of such teams will also have to be rigorously and regularly reviewed and evaluated.

53 Alternative provision has often been developed piecemeal by LEAs as needs have been perceived. A number of LEAs are currently reviewing their pattern of provision with the aim of making it more coherent. We commend such reviews, especially if they give proper consideration to the balance of advantage involved in different forms and combinations of alternative provision. We recommend that all LEAs should review the alternative provision that they make for the most difficult pupils and that, in determining future patterns of provision, they should take full account of: (R86)

53.1 the need to provide adequate, appropriate and cost-effective support for schools and individual pupils; (R86.1)

53.2 the importance of keeping pupils in and, if they are removed, returning them to mainstream schools wherever possible; (R86.2)

53.3 the balance between the inherent disadvantages of off-site units and the need to maintain a minimum number of off-site places; (R86.3)

53.4 the benefits that can accrue from the work of support teams in mainstream schools with access to on-site units; (R86.4) and

53.5 the need to ensure that support teams are adequately resourced to carry out their work effectively. (R86.5)

55 In these circumstances we envisage off-site units providing specialist help for those pupils who can, at least temporarily, no longer be constructively educated in ordinary schools. Their main purpose should be to reintegrate pupils into the mainstream at the earliest possible stage or to begin procedures for statementing. They would be run by members of the support team, an arrangement which would prevent the isolation which we describe above, and would improve communication and procedures for referral. They would offer a breathing space, specialist diagnosis and an individually tailored programme aimed at reintegration. In certain cases, pupils might be prepared for entry to a different school from the one they had previously attended. While they were attending an off-site unit, they would remain on the roll of the school which had referred them there.

56 We have commented on the piecemeal development of alternative provision over the last 10 to 15 years, and on the new context which is being established for it by the National Curriculum. Work remains to be done that is innovative and experimental. There is also a need to help LEAs to convert their often improvised provision into integrated and coherent support services. Although such services will give better value for money in the long term we recognise that setting them up can be expensive. We consider that the Secretaries of State could assist LEAs in improving their provision for those pupils who present the greatest difficulties to schools by making ESG funding available to stimulate developments in this area. We therefore recommend that the Secretaries of State should establish an Education Support Grant to encourage innovative projects aimed at providing comprehensive yet flexible support for the most difficult pupils and their schools. All LEAs should be eligible to bid for this grant for three years. (R87)

57 It is important that children in a unit should benefit from the other recommendations of our report. We have in mind such matters as quality of environment, challenge and support, respect for individuality, codes of behaviour, rewards and sanctions, and particularly the quality of relationships. We therefore recommend that on- and off-site units should take full account of the recommendations in this report wherever they are appropriate. (R88)

GROUP DIFFERENCES

58 There are group differences between pupils as well as individual ones. Pupils come from a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. We believe that, while schools should aim to become harmonious communities with a common core of shared values, they will not achieve this by pretending that these group differences do not exist. 'We treat them all the same' sounds like an excuse for not tackling some of the more awkward issues involved.

59 It is quite clear from our evidence that the great majority of pupils involved in disruptive behaviour are male. Boys are also far more likely to be involved in physical aggression than girls. Research evidence suggests not only that boys behave in a more attention-seeking way than girls in class but also that they also get much more attention from teachers (eg Morgan and Dunn 1988). This is not to say that girls do not sometimes behave badly. The difference is that the incidence of misbehaviour is much lower, and that some of the antisocial activities typical of girls are much less noticeable than boys' aggression. Bullying illustrates this point. Research shows that both boys and girls are involved in bullying (see chapter four). The difference is that, while boys are likely to use physical intimidation and violence, girls make use of more subtle techniques.

60 Exclusion statistics from schools in inner London suggest that pupils of Afro-Caribbean origin are proportionately more likely to be excluded than whites or Asians. A study of exclusions from Birmingham schools presented to us by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) seems to show a similar pattern there. The CRE study also suggests that, in suburban schools where there were fewer Afro-Caribbean pupils as a proportion of the total, they were even more likely to be excluded than in inner-city schools with more Afro-Caribbean pupils. It also suggests that Asian pupils were less likely to be excluded than whites.

61 We recognise that issues relating to gender and ethnicity can provoke strong feelings. In chapter four we suggest that dogmatic or inflexible approaches to racial prejudice are likely to be counter-productive. Questions of gender also need to be handled sensitively, not ignored. We believe that if heads and teachers are to create harmonious school communities they must take action in these areas.

62 In chapter five we recommend that parents should encourage their sons not to behave aggressively. Our evidence suggests that some teachers also have an important role to play in reducing boys' aggression. Our evidence suggest that some teachers, often unwittingly, reinforce such behaviour by automatically responding to it, or by reacting in a way which provides a model of the behaviour that they are trying to discourage. We therefore recommend that teachers should take account of the gender differences involved in pupils' behaviour, for example by not reinforcing attention-seeking and aggressive behaviour. (R89)

63 In chapter four we stress the value of multicultural education in promoting a sense of community in schools. We emphasise that the school curriculum should recognise and value the cultures of all its pupils, whether they come from majority or minority backgrounds. We believe that this kind of mutual respect should permeate every aspect of school life, including the affective curriculum. We therefore recommend that headteachers and staff should work to create a school climate which values all cultures, in particular those represented in it, through its academic and affective curricula. (R90)

64 We have already highlighted the dangers of stereotyping pupils. For teachers to assume that academically less able boys or Afro-Caribbean boys are going to be disruptive is not helpful to them or their pupils. We therefore recommend that teachers should recognise the potential for injustice and the practical dangers of stereotyping certain kinds of pupils as troublemakers. (R91)

65 It has been suggested to us that non-verbal communication, or body language, can produce misunderstandings between teachers and pupils from different cultural backgrounds. The example given related to rules about eye contact. In some cultures this tends to be avoided, particularly between people of different status, for example a pupil with a teacher. In other cultures, avoiding eye contact is interpreted as a sign of guilt. Teachers who insist that pupils 'look them in the eye' may provoke unnecessary confrontation. Unfamiliar expressions or forms of speech may also be misinterpreted by both teachers and pupils. It must be the responsibility of teachers to respond to these cultural differences with sensitivity. We therefore recommend that teachers should guard against misinterpreting non-verbal signals and speech patterns of pupils from different cultural backgrounds. (R92)

66 It has also been suggested to us that teachers themselves may sometimes show a lack of respect for minority cultures or ethnic groups. An example of this kind of behaviour would be a teacher deliberately mispronouncing a pupils' 'difficult' name when reading the register to amuse other members of the class. Throughout this report we emphasise the importance of adults presenting a good example to children. Behaviour of this kind will reinforce the attitudes of those pupils most likely to be involved in racial harassment such as name calling. We therefore recommend that teachers should avoid modelling any kind of insulting or discriminating behaviour. (R93)

67 The evidence submitted by the CRE suggests that a few teachers may themselves be guilty of racial harassment. In chapter four we recommend that heads and their staff develop clear strategies to deal with racial harassment by pupils. This is perhaps even more important in cases of racial harassment by teachers. We therefore recommend that LEAs and governing bodies which employ school staff should regard the racial harassment of pupils or colleagues by teachers or other staff as a disciplinary offence. (R94)

TELEVISION

68 A considerable number of our submissions suggest that factors other than personality, family background and school processes influence the way in which pupils behave. Television is frequently cited as a background influence which may have an adverse effect on children's behaviour. Children spend about 1200 hours a year at school. We are told that on average they spend about 1000 hours watching television. Some of the submissions we received blame television for aggressive behaviour in schools because it provides boys with a continuous stream of violent or 'macho' male role models.

69 Some submissions also raise concerns about 'video nasties' and the prospect of cable and satellite stations. It is increasingly common for homes not only to have more than one television but also more than one video cassette recorder. American research suggests that young people's tastes tend to narrow rather than expand as more viewing choices become available. In the not too distant future it may be possible for children to watch nothing but violent programmes by combining network, video and cable or satellite choices.

70 A considerable amount of research has been carried out over the last 20 years into the relationship between television and violence. A review of its findings by the Home Office Research and Planning Unit in 1986 concluded that, while there was some evidence that frequent viewing of violent television goes with a slight tendency to be more violent, it had not been shown that it causes children to be more aggressive. It may just be that aggressive children watch more violent television.

71 This is not a cause for complacency. Our evidence confirms that there is widespread public concern about this issue. We believe that broadcasters and the government should continue to take this concern very seriously.

72 On the other hand, it has also been pointed out to us that many programmes contain messages about social responsibility and concern for others. Soap operas such as Neighbours or Eastenders which are known to be very popular with children, present a range of personal and social issues which can be used educationally by teachers and parents.

73 The main thrust of our recommendations is therefore towards the responsible use of television in educating children. Broadcasters, teachers and parents all have parts to play in this process.

74 Both the BBC and IBA [Independent Broadcasting Authority - now defunct] have codes of practice covering violence and advisory councils which include parents and teachers. Their general obligations require them to provide programmes designed to inform, entertain and educate. Both accept the idea of a 'watershed' at 9.00 pm before which programmes should be suitable for family viewing. Recent IBA research (1987) indicates that over 70% of parents are aware of this 'watershed'. Both the BBC and independent channels broadcast children's programmes and educational programmes for use by schools. It has been suggested to us that broadcasters tend to see such programmes as the limit of their educational responsibilities. It is clear that most children watch a much wider range of programmes than this, including many which are broadcast after the 9.00 pm 'watershed'. We therefore recommend that broadcasters should take full account of their educational responsibilities for the content of all television programmes, including those broadcast after 9.00 pm, and that the Broadcasting Standards Council should encourage them to do so. (R95)

75 We have emphasised the need for teachers to understand the culture of their pupils. Popular television programmes are an important part of that culture. All of us tend to feel hurt if our tastes and enthusiasms are rejected by others. If teachers ignore or even ridicule pupils' interests in such programmes this is likely to be interpreted as rejection.

76 Media education aims to develop a critical understanding of the modem mass media including television. Our evidence suggests that more schools are now making use of popular television as an educational resource either in special media studies courses or for topic work in other subjects such as English. The National Curriculum English Working Group was specifically asked by the Secretary of State to look at the place of media studies within the English curriculum. The Group's first report emphasises the importance of understanding how words and pictures are used on television. Its second report is likely to amplify this in the context of the secondary curriculum. While we welcome this development, we recognise that it is not for the English curriculum alone to deal with television. We believe that there is also considerable scope for using the issues raised by popular programmes as starting points for discussion in personal, social and moral education. There are also opportunities for involving the parents of younger children in home- school viewing schemes. These entail parents and children watching and discussing particular programmes together as an extension of topic work in school. Teachers and parents can also introduce children to ways of looking at the form as well as the content of television programmes. They can, for example, discuss how they are made or why people want to make them. In this way children can become critical viewers in the same way that they are encouraged to Income critical readers by studying literature. We therefore recommend that teachers and parents should make active use of television as an educational resource, reinforcing the positive messages presented by programmes and encouraging children to become more discriminating and critical viewers. (R96)

77 We have highlighted the anxieties expressed to us about the possible effects of violent 'video nasties' on children's attitudes and behaviour. We have also registered concerns about the future possibility of children with a taste for violent images moving towards 'all-violence' viewing as cable and satellite channels come on stream. We believe that parents have the primary responsibility for ensuring that this does not happen. New technologies themselves may offer parents better means of regulating their children's viewing through devices such as pre- programmable controls. We therefore recommend that parents should monitor and, where necessary, restrict their children's access to network, cable, satellite or video material transmitting violent or other antisocial messages. (R97)

78 In response to public concern over issues like violence in television the government has recently set up a Broadcasting Standards Council (BSC). One of its functions will be to draw up a code on the portrayal of sex and violence in all forms of broadcasting in order to define standards in these areas more clearly. The BSC will have an important role to play in promoting the responsible use of television.

79 Other steps have been taken to control access to unsuitable programmes. The Video Recordings Act 1984 established a system of classification for videos with penalties for those who supply unclassified videos or make videos classified '18' or '15' available to younger people. The Act requires the British Board of Film Classification to pay special attention to the fact that videos are likely to be viewed at home. The result is that videos are often more heavily cut than their film equivalents. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 has given trading standards officers new powers to enforce the 1984 Act.

80 The government has also recognised the danger of unacceptable programmes being transmitted into this country from unregulated satellites. It is working towards an agreement, which it hopes will be reached early in 1989, on a Council of Europe convention covering the international regulation of television services. This will include minimum standards on taste and decency, and will specifically prohibit programmes containing gratuitous violence.

81 We welcome these measures and urge the government to monitor their effectiveness in regulating the content of network, cable, satellite or video material and children's access to programmes containing violent or other antisocial messages.

DIET

82 What children eat has changed in recent years. A few of our correspondents identify aspects of diet, in particular 'fast' or 'junk' food, as causes of bad behaviour in schools. There are two main variations to this argument. The first is that additives in junk foods affect children's behaviour. The second is that 'junk' food diets lack important vitamins and trace elements which may influence behaviour.

83 We have been advised by the Department of Health that there is no firm scientific evidence of links between 'junk food' diets and children's behaviour. This does not, of course, mean that scientists will stop looking. If such links were to be identified, action to improve children's diets could become an important contribution to improving behaviour in schools. We therefore recommend that the government should continue to monitor research findings on links between children's diets and behaviour and should take appropriate action if any causal connections are identified. (R98)