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 10 Local Education Authorities
[pages 178 - 194]

THE ROLE OF LEAs

1 There are 105 LEAs in England and Wales. The abolition of the ILEA and the transfer of its functions to the inner London councils in 1990 will increase their number to 117. LEAs vary greatly in size, but they all have similar functions. The 1988 Education Reform Act will mean significant changes in these functions. Some of the changes made by the Act, like local management of schools (LMS see chapter four), will be phased in over several years. This report has been written with the implications of the Act in mind. We start this chapter by outlining the role of LEAs in this new context.

2 With the exception of the ILEA, all LEAs are part of councils which are responsible for running a range of public services of which education is only one. Local education services, which include schools and colleges, are controlled by education committees consisting mainly of elected councillors. Education committees have general responsibilities for the management of education services in their areas. Chief education officers are responsible for giving professional advice to education committees and for managing education departments which provide a wide range of services for schools, colleges and individual clients.

3 LEAs will provide four general kinds of service relevant to schools in the new environment created by the 1988 Act. All of these can relate to the question of pupil's behaviour. They can be summarised as follows:

3.1 LEAs will be responsible for coordinating the introduction into their schools of national initiatives such as LMS and the National Curriculum (see chapter four), and for monitoring and providing advice and support for the development of those initiatives. They will also be responsible for monitoring the performance of their schools, advising schools on how to improve their performance and providing support for such action. This chapter deals with their responsibilities for monitoring performance and providing consultancy services.

3.2 LEAs will provide a range of personnel services including professional advice to governors on appointments and dismissals (see chapter nine), in-service training (see chapters three and four) and staff appraisal (see chapters three and four). As the employers of most school staff, LEAs will continue to be responsible for their welfare. We consider an important aspect of this responsibility in this chapter.

3.3 LEAs will continue to provide a range of services for individual pupils, parents and teachers. These are sometimes called 'client based' services to distinguish them from those provided through schools, although they can support whole schools as well as individuals. Client based services include school meals (see chapter four), the education welfare and psychology services (see chapters four, six and seven), alternative provision for disturbed or difficult pupils (see chapter six) and the youth and careers services. This chapter deals with the coordination of client based services and with the youth and careers services.

3.4 LEAs will continue to be responsible for the long term planning of educational provision in their areas. This includes making sure that there are enough school places of the right kind in the right locations and that surplus places are taken out of use, which may involve reorganisation of existing schools. LEAs will also retain their responsibilities for school building programmes and for structural repairs to school premises (see chapter four). We do not discuss the reorganisation of schools in detail in this report. The 'settling in' period for a new school made up of staff and pupils from others which have been closed can be difficult, but problems involving pupils' behaviour in these circumstances tend to be short term. We are not suggesting that reorganisation schemes which may have major benefits in terms of improving the quality of pupils' education and making it more cost-effective should be abandoned because of such difficulties. When merging schools, LEAs should assess the effects of the merger on the behaviour of the pupils in the new school and take account of these effects in their provision of support services to it during the 'settling in' period.

4 All LEAs have senior officers responsible for the management of services for schools. They also have advisors or inspectors responsible for monitoring and improving the quality of the curriculum which schools provide. Both officers and inspectors visit schools. Many LEAs give their inspectors 'pastoral' responsibility for a group of schools. Our impression is that this may amount to an effective consultancy service for heads and teachers in some LEAs, but in many it does not. We consider that the quality of consultancy services available to schools can be an important factor in promoting good behaviour. The clear message emerging from the 'effective schools' research to which we refer throughout this report is that one of the best ways of improving standards of behaviour in a school is to change the way in which the institution works. We know that this can be a very difficult process. It may be particularly difficult for 'insiders' like heads and their management teams to recognise that some of the features built into the organisations that they run are actually increasing the likelihood of bad behaviour among pupils. Heads and their senior colleagues may also find it difficult to accept advice from 'outsiders', particularly if it is seen as a criticism of their management styles. But it is common practice both in commercial and public sector organisations to use management consultants to identify organisational weaknesses and suggest remedies for them. LEAs themselves sometimes make use of external consultants to help them improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of their education departments. If consultants can show themselves to be well qualified, well informed and sensitive to the practical constraints faced by managers, their advice will be seen as constructive by their clients.

5 We are, however, aware of two problems which restrict the value of the consultancy services that LEAs currently provide for their schools. The first relates to the traditional roles and capabilities of LEA officers and inspectors. The second is the quality of management information currently available to them.

6 LEA officers and inspectors are equipped to provide heads with advice on technical, legal, financial and curriculum matters. Systematic management advice is not readily provided by many LEAs to their schools. Our impression from talking to heads is that it is often not clear who is responsible for giving management, as distinct from technical or curriculum, advice to headteachers and that consequently that advice is not given. We believe that many heads would welcome and make good use of effective management consultancy services if they were provided by LEAs, and that such services could make a significant contribution towards improving standards of behaviour in schools. We therefore recommend that all LEAs should provide effective management consultancy services for headteachers. (R118)

7 We recognise that this recommendation is likely to present LEAs with practical difficulties. Smaller LEAs in particular would have difficulty in adding a 'school management consultant' to their officer or advisory teams. Some LEAs would argue that 'advisory heads' have sometimes been employed with very limited success. They might also point out that heads can be encouraged to seek each other's advice on management problems through 'peer consultancy' arrangements. We are not suggesting a single solution to the consultancy problem which will work for all LEAs. Solutions need to be tailored to local circumstances. Smaller LEAs could, for example, group themselves into consortia made up of several authorities to provide a consultancy service more economically, LEAs may be able to combine services provided by officers and inspectors with a peer consultancy network for headteachers.

8 Effective consultancy is based on good management information. LEAs already have a wealth of statistical information on numbers, costs, examination results and so on. The picture of an organisation painted by statistics alone can however be misleading. 'Hard' information has an important part to play in improving the quality of school management, and of the consultancy services available to headteachers, but it needs to be interpreted in the light of other knowledge. There is among officers and inspectors in every authority a pool of information about schools in the area, covering such matters as differences in the nature of school catchment areas, the history of schools, the composition of their staff and the personal styles of different headteachers. Such so-called 'soft' information, based on professional judgements rather than statistics, can be of immense value to those seeking to advise headteachers. LEAs should make arrangements to ensure that it is accessible.

9 Our evidence from LEAs indicates that, in most of them, the 'hard' information available about pupils' behaviour in their schools is very limited. Some collect and analyse school attendance statistics. In chapter seven we recommend that all LEAs should do so. Some maintain detailed records of the exclusion of pupils from their schools. Only one LEA appears to maintain records of violent incidents involving school staff. Later in this chapter we recommend that all LEAs should maintain detailed records of serious incidents in and exclusions from their schools. Such records should help them target consultancy and support on the schools that need them most.

10 The development of performance indicators for schools is a complex process which is in its early stages. We consider that, when they are more fully developed, such indicators could be useful to officers and inspectors for targeting LEA consultancy and support services more precisely. But they will have to be used with care. Even sophisticated indicators cannot be used as performance measures. Their purpose is not to provide answers but to enable managers and consultants to ask pertinent questions.

11 We recommend that LEAs should develop information systems covering pupils' behaviour in their schools which will enable them to make timely and effective use of their consultancy and support services. (R119)

12 Section 28 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 gives LEAs a reserve power to intervene directly in the running of a county or controlled school maintained by them in the event of a breakdown of discipline, or the likelihood of such a breakdown occurring. An LEA can use this power if it judges that the behaviour of pupils is such that their education is severely prejudiced or is likely to become so in the immediate future. It is clear that this power is intended for use as a last resort and that it will be used rarely, but this does not diminish its importance.

13 We recommend that if an LEA is convinced that a breakdown of discipline has occurred or is likely to occur in a school, it should not hesitate to use its powers of intervention under section 28 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. (R120)

SUPPORT SYSTEMS

14 LEAs must also provide routine practical support for schools and pupils in difficulty. In many LEAs this does not at present appear to be done as part of a coherent system. We asked all LEAs about the guidelines they provide for their schools on disciplinary matters. A considerable number of LEAs sent us examples of the written advice they provide. These examples vary considerably in their approaches. Some simply provide legal guidance covering the procedures involved in excluding pupils from school laid down in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Others provide much more detailed guidance on, for example, the steps that can be taken before a pupil is formally excluded, sometimes including ways of involving parents, education welfare officers and educational psychologists. We received a number of examples of documents outlining such guidance which seemed well thought out. Circumstances of different LEAs will vary. We do not therefore put forward a model for others to copy. We set out below the main features which we think good LEA guidelines should have. They are:

14.1 advice on the law as it applies to headteachers, governing bodies and the LEA;

14.2 clear guidelines for headteachers covering what they should do themselves and what they can expect LEA officers and others to do;

14.3 suggestions for a 'staged' approach to exclusions, with clear objectives and procedures at each stage of the process. Under such an approach the parents might for instance be formally notified as soon as a pupil's behaviour was causing concern, and warned of the risk of exclusion. If the pupil's behaviour did not improve the parents might receive a further warning that the LEA and governing body had been notified, and the education welfare service would be brought in; 14.4 formal procedures for ensuring that the LEA considers the possibility that a pupil who is at risk of exclusion may have special educational needs;

14.5 procedures for bringing in the full range of LEA and local authority services where a pupil is excluded;

14.6 the use of a re-entry agreement (see chapter four) when a pupil is excluded for an indefinite period;

14.7 if possible, the opportunity for a pupil to be transferred to another school if he or she is excluded permanently; and

14.8 a clear end to the exclusion process, such as the transfer of a pupil to an off-site unit.

15.1 that LEAs should develop effective strategies for supporting the behaviour policies of their schools based on clear aims and procedures and backed up by the necessary communication systems and resources; (R121.1) and

15.2 that they should regularly evaluate these strategies in relation to their aims and the perceptions of schools, parents and pupils of the quality of service being provided. (R121.2)

17 We visited a large secondary school in Sunderland which had an education welfare officer based on site. He served that school and its 'feeder' primary schools. This arrangement meant that he could work closely with the school's pastoral team and maintain continuous contact with families throughout the school careers of their children. Such an arrangement would not be suitable in all circumstances. In some authorities with a large number of relatively small and widely distributed secondary schools it would not be a practical arrangement. Some city secondary schools take small numbers of children from so many different primary schools that the idea of 'feeder' school hardly applies. We are also aware that in some instances relations between teachers and education welfare officers are not as good as they might be. It is very important that efforts should be made to maintain good relations and mutual confidence between these two professions. We are convinced of the value of continuity of contact between education welfare officers, schools, and families. We therefore recommend that LEAs should, wherever possible, ensure continuity of family and school contacts by using education welfare officers to service clusters of secondary and related primary schools. (R123)

18 In chapter six we recommend that all LEAs should employ adequate numbers of educational psychologists to enable them to achieve the six month target for assessing and providing statements of special educational needs for pupils. We consider that educational psychologists should play a much wider role in promoting good behaviour in schools. We know that, in a number of LEAs, educational psychologists are involved in in-service training in classroom management. We consider that LEAs may also get better value in terms of improving pupils' behaviour out of their educational psychology services if they use them for more general consultancy and in-service training work in schools. Traditionally educational psychologists have concentrated on the difficulties and needs of individual pupils. We consider that it is necessary for them to look at the situations in which pupils are behaving badly rather than simply to concentrate on the behaviour of individuals. A number of LEAs are now also using their educational psychologists to provide a more general consultancy service for schools dealing with difficult behaviour. This is easier if educational psychologists are linked to particular schools and have regular contact with them. We recommend that LEAs should encourage closer working relationships between schools and educational psychologists to develop consultancy services providing advice on the management of behaviour in groups and in the school as a whole. (R124)

19 We know that some pupils and their families are sometimes in contact with a variety of welfare and other agencies. Education welfare officers, educational psychologists, support teachers, social workers, housing departments, health service agencies and the police can all be involved. In its submission to us, the Secondary Heads Association highlights the potential for closer collaboration between these agencies and schools. It points out the problems that can be caused by lack of coordination between various agencies and by misunderstandings between teachers and other professionals working with young people and their families. It emphasises the need for closer inter-agency cooperation at local level and for more mutual understanding. We support this view. We consider that the links between school pastoral systems and external agencies dealing with the same clients can usefully be developed. The local authority, as 'owner' of many of the services involved, is in a good position to develop inter-agency links and promote mutual understanding. This can be done at authority level through inter- agency committees or liaison groups and at operational level through case conferences. We therefore recommend that local authorities should promote better coordination between the various local agencies dealing with pupils with behaviour or attendance problems and their families. (R125)

YOUTH AND CAREERS SERVICES

2O LEA youth services, which cater mainly for young people of secondary school age, are usually based on youth centres run by youth workers. A common pattern is for services to be provided by a combination of LEA-run centres and others run by voluntary organisations which may receive grant-aid from the LEA. In some areas there are also 'detached' youth workers running projects for young people which are not based on centres. There can also be links between youth workers, centres and projects and individual secondary schools. Some youth centres operate on school premises in the evenings. We believe that each of these arrangements can contribute to developing constructive and responsible social attitudes among young people which can have a beneficial influence on their behaviour in schools.

21 Youth workers generally have a good understanding of young people's interests and are able to relate to them well in an informal way. Traditionally, youth centres have been associated with providing social and leisure facilities. But most youth workers emphasise the educational aims of their service. One of these is to provide personal and social education by informal means. Many youth service activities take the form of projects which rely on cooperative effort. Young people are often encouraged to take active responsibility for the management of youth centres. It seems clear to us that, if an LEA has an active youth service which has a positive educational purpose, its curriculum can reinforce school personal and social education programmes in a number of areas. In chapter three we ask LEAs to create opportunities for joint training involving youth workers and teachers. We believe that there is much that they can learn from each other about managing groups of young people. We also recommend that LEAs should encourage schools and youth services to explore the possibilities for developing closer links within particular catchment areas and, where appropriate, for basing youth workers in schools. (R126)

22 A number of the submissions we received link bad behaviour in schools to youth unemployment. Our evidence does not suggest that there is any simple relationship between regional variations in employment levels and the seriousness of behaviour problems perceived by teachers. It seems likely to us, however, that the prospect of unemployment will have a demotivating effect on some pupils which will affect their will to learn and their behaviour or attendance. We consider that LEA careers services have a role to play in improving the motivation of older secondary pupils. Careers officers usually have responsibility for one or more secondary schools. They aim to give guidance to all fourth or fifth year pupils before they leave school. We consider that the quality of the guidance and job placement services provided by careers officers is important for the self-esteem of lower achieving pupils. It must be clear to them that their career prospects are being taken seriously, and that their behaviour in school is a relevant factor. We recommend that LEAs should make the improvement of the motivation and self-esteem of lower achieving pupils one of the objectives of their careers services. (R127)

SUPPLY TEACHERS

23 When full time teachers are away from school, substitute or supply teachers are provided by LEAs to take their classes. Under LMS, the budget used by LEAs to pay for supply cover will be delegated to schools. It will be for each school to decide what arrangements it wishes to make for supply cover. The systems which are adopted will not, however, alter the force of the following paragraphs.

24 Heads and teachers in almost all the schools we visited raised the problem of supply teachers with us. We were told that supply teachers often have particular classroom management problems. These may reflect the extra difficulty of the task they have to perform. They may not know the school or any of its pupils or staff. They may be asked to teach an unfamiliar age group or subject. In many respects, therefore, supply teachers have to face repeatedly the difficulties with which other teachers only have to cope when they are first appointed to a school. One result is that pupils will continually test them out. In the case of a planned absence work will usually have been set for classes. In other cases it often will not. A supply teacher may then have neither the opportunity to plan a lesson properly nor the information to make it relevant to pupils' needs.

25 All this means that supply teachers have a greater need of skill and experience than other teachers if the behaviour of the pupils for whom they are responsible is not to deteriorate. This, in turn, means that high standards are needed both in their selection and in their training for this particular role. We therefore recommend:

25.1 that LEAs and schools should select supply teachers with as much care as full-time staff; (R128.1) and

25.2 that LEAs should provide them with in-service training in classroom management. (R128.2)

27 Nationally supply teachers provide about 5% of total teaching time in schools. This proportion may vary considerably between individual schools and LEAs. Supply teachers are used to replace teachers who are absent or unavailable to teach for a variety of reasons including sickness and in-service training. No systematic national analysis of the facts about teachers' absence and supply cover is available. The results of a survey by one LEA, summarised in the report of the Interim Advisory Committee (IAC) on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (1988), showed that 41% of the teachers for whom supply cover was provided on one day in 1983 were absent because of sickness or family reasons. A further 24% were taking part in school journeys and 15% in in-service training.

28 The IAC report identifies a variety of ways to reduce the unsettling effect on pupils and schools of the frequent use of supply teachers. These include avoiding known peak periods for absence due to sickness when planning school journeys and in-service training, using groups of supply teachers on permanent or longer-term contracts to service clusters of schools or increasing the full-time staff of schools by one or more teachers whose main task is to provide cover for absent colleagues. We commend all these suggestions for consideration by schools and LEAs. The IAC report also recommends that LEAs should carry out a careful analysis of patterns of supply cover as a first step towards improving its management. We support this recommendation.

29 It has been suggested to us that another way of reducing the need for supply cover would be for more in-service training to take place when pupils are on holiday. The recent provision of five non-teaching days in the teacher's working year represents a move in this direction. It seems clear that the teachers' professional associations would oppose any extension of the teacher's working year to provide training days without some form of compensation. At present Local Education Authority Training Grants Scheme funds cannot be used to pay teachers to undertake training. Where such training took the place of training in term time, however, the cost of that compensation could be met from savings in expenditure on supply teachers, whose hourly rates of pay are generally higher than those of full-time teachers. We consider that the consequent reduction in the use of supply teachers would reduce behaviour problems in the schools affected. We recognise that the savings would have to be clearly identified and the risk of reducing the amount of training currently taking place avoided. Any scheme would have to be devised in the light of a full knowledge of its resource and administrative consequences. We therefore recommend that, in order to increase the amount of in-service training undertaken out of school hours, the Secretaries of State should consider the extent to which it would be possible to finance such training from savings achieved by a consequential reduction in the use of supply teachers to replace full- time teachers absent on in-service training courses. (R129)

30 While it may be possible to reduce the number of supply teachers used by schools, it will not be possible, nor would it be desirable, to eliminate their use altogether. Unavoidable absences, for reasons other than training, will continue to require supply cover. It will be very important therefore to see that supply teachers are chosen, trained and deployed as effectively as possible, and that schools support them properly.

31 Much of the particular difficulty of supply teachers' work results, as we have suggested, from their constant redeployment to new tasks in unfamiliar schools. This difficulty can be reduced to a minimum by administrative means. We therefore recommend that LEAs should make it their normal practice to attach individual supply teachers to specific schools or groups of schools. (R130)

32 We have received a clear impression that supply teachers are not well treated in some schools. We do not think this is intentional, but the results are no less damaging for that. In some schools supply teachers are not welcomed by the head or senior member of staff on their first day. They are given inadequate information and may be more or less ignored by other teachers. This is not likely to improve their morale, which is an important factor in effective classroom management. We consider that the problems which seem to be associated with supply teachers could be significantly reduced if schools adopted a code of good practice for their use. As an example they could consider the following, which is based on suggestions made in a recent article by Dr Jean Lawrence (1988). Schools should:

32.1 provide a welcoming environment for supply teachers;

32.2 make a senior member of staff responsible for briefing and managing them;

32.3 provide supply teachers with an information pack containing a school map, staff and form lists, and a summary of the school's behaviour policy and its practical application;

32.4 provide work and instructions for the classes they are to take and a system for reporting their work and behaviour to regular teachers;

32.5 pair supply teachers with experienced colleagues in adjacent classrooms if behaviour problems are expected;

32.6 obtain full information about the qualifications and experience of supply teachers systematically; and

32.7 review supply cover arrangements regularly. This should involve not only the head and senior management team but the whole staff.

SERIOUS INCIDENTS REPORTING SYSTEMS

34 In chapter two we conclude that the question of whether there is now more bad behaviour in schools cannot be answered satisfactorily because of a lack of hard information. It is not even possible to say whether there has been a national increase in the number of attacks on school staff or in the number of pupils permanently excluded from schools. Most LEAs do not appear to keep any systematic record of serious incidents in schools. We are aware of only one, the ILEA, which keeps detailed records of violent incidents involving its staff. More LEAs maintain a central record of exclusions from their schools, but variations in the form and level of detail of these records make comparisons between authorities very difficult.

35 We consider this state of affairs to be very unsatisfactory. It represents a serious gap in the management and policy information available to LEAs and to the Government. The report on Preventing Violence to Staff recently published by the Health and Safety Executive points out that setting up a proper recording system for incidents is a vital step towards developing effective strategies to deal with the problem of violence to staff.

36 The details provided by the ILEA system of recording injuries resulting from incidents involving two or more people illustrate the potential value of such records. The breakdown of incidents involving staff in ordinary schools in the 1987/88 academic year was as shown in this table.

37 The figures show that the majority of injuries to staff occurred as a result of stopping fights or physically restraining pupils in some way. This has clear practical and training implications particularly for school meals supervisors who are on duty when fights between pupils are most likely to occur and who, according to these figures, are much more at risk of injury in such circumstances than teachers. They also show that the risk from intruders on school premises is not insignificant, particularly for caretakers.

38 Systematic exclusion records would also be useful for targeting consultancy and remedial action. Researchers have noted quite large variations in the rates at which different schools exclude pupils which cannot be explained by the nature of their catchment areas. A recent study of exclusions from secondary schools in Leeds found that the schools with the highest exclusion rates were those in which pupils who misbehaved were most rapidly referred up to senior staff rather than being dealt with by class teachers or form tutors (McManus 1987). This finding suggests that exclusion rates could be reduced in some schools by reorganising their internal referral systems.

39 We recommend:

39.1 that an LEA/DES/Welsh Office working group should be set up as soon as possible to develop serious incidents reporting systems with the aim of having a pilot system in place by September 1989; (R132.1) and

39.2 that, as soon as possible thereafter, all LEAs should establish serious incidents reporting systems and should monitor and act upon the information that these systems provide. (R132.2)

ATTACKS ON STAFF

41 This enquiry was set up by the Secretary of State partly in response to reports of physical attacks on teachers and other school staff by pupils and parents. This issue is a matter of the gravest concern to us.

42 The breakdown of violent incidents resulting in injuries to school staff shown above provides a reasonably precise indication of the number of violent incidents resulting in injury which took place in one inner-city LEA in a year. The problem of attacks does not appear to be large in terms of the number of staff affected. We do not, however, underestimate its seriousness for the individuals and schools involved. One of the main thrusts of this report is towards minimising the opportunities for bad behaviour of all kinds by improving the group management skills of teachers and other staff, and the organisation and atmosphere of schools. We believe that action in these areas can make an important contribution to reducing the risk of violence for school staff, particularly that which may result from the escalation of minor incidents, but it will not eliminate it. Violent incidents can occur in the best run schools. Teachers and school meals supervisors will occasionally have to break up fights between pupils, putting themselves at risk in the process. School staff will occasionally be attacked by intruders. We consider that the employers of school staff have a duty to support any employee who is attacked, and to facilitate appropriate action against their attacker. We recommend that LEAs and governing bodies which employ school staff should establish clear procedures for dealing with attacks on staff by pupils, members of pupils' families or intruders. (R133)

43 We consider that such procedures should include the following features.

43.1 Effective reporting systems. Recording attacks on staff would be an important part of the serious incidents reporting systems which we recommend earlier in this chapter. Employers should ensure that prompt action is taken as soon as a report is received.

43.2 Support for victims. School staff must be confident that all violence against them will be taken seriously and that they will be supported by their employers. This support may need to be personal, for example through legal advice or counselling. Serious cases can attract media attention. Victims and other members of the school community may need help in dealing with reporters. Some violent incidents seriously affect the morale of a whole school. Headteachers and LEAs or governors will need to provide support for other staff and pupils during such a crisis.

43.3 Action against attackers. Some violent incidents involving school staff are clear cut cases of attack on them by pupils, parents or intruders. Others are not. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 makes it clear that staff can legitimately use physical means to prevent a pupil injuring anybody or damaging property. We have, however, been told of incidents not covered by these circumstances which were sparked off by teachers administering illegal corporal punishment of some kind. We do not doubt that such incidents are very rare, and we do not suggest that this justifies the pupil's action. But we must recognise the complexity of such cases. We cannot, therefore, recommend a single course of action for employers covering all violent incidents. We would expect employers to report an alleged criminal act to the police in cases where it has not already been reported by the employee, unless the employee objects. When such an allegation is reported the police will decide whether to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS will then decide whether or not to prosecute. We consider that the employer should try to find out what action the police and CPS propose to take and pass on this information to the employee. The police may decide not to refer the case to the CPS, or the CPS may decide not to prosecute. In these circumstances we consider that the employer should be prepared to provide legal advice on the other courses of action which remain open to the employee. One is to institute a private prosecution for common assault. The other is to take action for civil damages against the alleged attacker.

45 Attacks on individual members of staff can affect the morale of their colleagues. We believe that damage to morale may be increased if the police decide not to refer the case to the CPS or the CPS decides not to prosecute. We recommend:

45.1 that, in considering whether to refer cases of physical attack on school staff to the Crown Prosecution Service, chief officers of police should take into account the effects of their decisions on staff morale as an aspect of public interest; (R134.1) and

45.2 that the Crown Prosecution Service should also take staff morale into account as an aspect of public interest when deciding whether to prosecute such cases. (R134.2)