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 8 Police
[pages 170 - 171]

1 Our evidence suggests that there is considerable scope for cooperation between the police, LEAs and schools to promote good behaviour and attendance among pupils. In chapter seven we recommend that more LEAs and police forces should consider carrying out joint 'truancy sweeps' in their areas. In chapter 10 we urge the police to take full account of staff morale when considering whether to refer cases involving attacks on school staff to the Crown Prosecution Service. In this chapter we consider the scope for collaboration between the police and schools on a variety of levels.

DEALING WITH INTRUDERS

2 We have been told that the appearance of intruders during the school day is a persistent problem in some schools. During our programme of visits to schools, we were also shown some examples of property vandalised by intruders. Some of these intruders may be ex-pupils or pupils' relatives. Others will have no connection with the school at all. The presence of an intruder during school hours can be a distracting influence on pupils and a cause of concern to staff. It can also be associated with the theft of equipment or personal property. In some cases it can be dangerous. The analysis of non-accidental injuries to school staff provided by the ILEA (see chapter 10) shows that 20% of them took place as a result of encounters with intruders or ex-pupils.

3 Trespass is not, in itself, a criminal offence but section 40 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 makes it an offence for a trespasser to cause a nuisance or disturbance on school premises. Both the police and persons authorised by the LEA, or governing body in the case of aided schools, have powers to remove trespassers whom they have reasonable cause to suspect are committing or have committed an offence under this section. The police also have powers under section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to arrest trespassers if there are reasonable grounds for believing that they may become violent, steal or damage property.

4 It seems clear to us therefore that adequate legal powers exist to remove intruders. School staff may understandably be reluctant to remove certain kinds of intruder themselves. The quality of relationships between the school and local police is therefore important. We consider that headteachers should establish a clear understanding with their local police about the circumstances in which the police will be called upon to intervene. In some cases it may be appropriate for chief education officers to make initial contact with chief officers of police to establish a general framework of response for the area as a whole. Once these understandings are established, we believe that the police should always intervene if asked to do so by the headteacher or other senior members of staff.

5 In its evidence to us, the National Association of Head Teachers suggests that the maximum penalty for trespassers found guilty of causing a disturbance in a school is too low. This penalty consists of a fine at level two on the standard scale, which currently stands at £100. We agree that this would probably not be enough to act as an effective deterrent to intruders on its own. However, more serious disturbances can be dealt with under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which provides for fines at level three on the standard scale, which currently stands at £400. We consider that this provides a sufficient deterrent.

COLLABORATION WITH SCHOOLS

6 The Secondary Heads Association provides us with examples of collaborative projects involving schools with other agencies. Most of these projects included the police. The recent publication by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools on good practice in school-police liaison, Our Policeman, contains many more examples of such schemes. Much of this work is not directly related to behaviour in schools, but two types of project seem to be directly relevant to this enquiry.

7 'School watch' schemes aim to raise pupils' and parents' awareness of vandalism to and theft from schools. These schemes encourage pupils and parents living near schools to report suspicious activities to the police. In chapter four we emphasise the importance of promoting a sense of community and 'ownership' of the premises among pupils. School watch schemes may help in this process.

8 Our Policeman points out the valuable contribution that the police can make to personal and social education programmes in schools. An example quoted in the report involved a teacher, two police officers and a group of low achieving fourth year pupils in a project based on planning and carrying out work to repair damage done by vandals in a local park. We believe that there is considerable scope for practical projects of this kind, as well as more conventional work in the classroom, and that the police can play a positive role in promoting the principles of social responsibility and good citizenship among pupils.

9 We recommend that all LEAs and schools should recognise the practical and educational value of good relations with the police and promote the development of school-police liaison projects. (R107)