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 11 Government
[pages 195 - 203]

THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE

1 Throughout this report we argue that there is no single or simple solution to the problem of disruptive behaviour in schools. We emphasise the need for concerted action to promote good behaviour at classroom, school, community and national levels. There is no single, dramatic step that the government can take to transform the situation in schools. Our report identifies a variety of specific actions which, taken together, will do much to improve the standards of behaviour in our schools. Some of them should be taken by the government.

2 In chapters three and four we recommend ways in which the Secretaries of State can help to improve the quality of training for heads and other teachers and reinforce their authority and status. In chapter four we suggest ways in which the National Curriculum could be designed to promote better behaviour. In chapter five we recommend that the government should consider ways of making parents more accountable for their children's behaviour and promoting the principles of responsible parenthood. In chapter 10 we recommend that the Secretaries of State should help to set up a national reporting system for serious incidents in schools. We also welcome a number of government initiatives such as the appraisal of heads and teachers (see chapter four) and the development of records of achievement, work experience schemes and compacts with employers (see chapter six), all of which we believe should help to improve the management of schools and classrooms and the motivation of pupils. This chapter deals with two further issues - the funding of the education service and the arrangements for excluding from schools those pupils involved in the most serious misbehaviour.

FUNDING LEAs

3 There is a link between the amount of money which central government makes available to local authorities and the amount that LEAs spend on schools and support services but it is not always direct and simple. About half the expenditure of a typical LEA is supported by government grant. Almost all this money comes in the form of Rate Support Grant which does not have to be spent on any particular service. The rest is specific grant such as Education Support Grant or money for in-service training. The other half of a typical LEA's expenditure is supported by the rates and other sources of income.

4 Levels of expenditure on teachers, schools and support services vary considerably between LEAs. For example, figures produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for 1987/88 show a range of expenditure estimates for secondary schools from about £1500 to about £2500 per pupil. The range shown for primary schools is about £800 to £1700 per pupil. These variations reflect policy differences between LEAs as well as different social and economic circumstances in the areas they serve. The amount of Rate Support Grant received can also vary greatly. LEAs serving poorer and more disadvantaged communities tend to get more. A few in the most prosperous or high spending areas get none at all.

5 In chapters four, six and seven we recommend reviews of expenditure levels in five areas. They are the education welfare and psychology services, pre-school education, building maintenance and arrangements for lunchtime supervision. In the first three areas we note the large variations in levels of provision between different LEAs and recommend that those at the bottom of the range ensure that what they provide constitutes an adequate service in terms of this report. We draw attention to more general concerns relating to building maintenance and lunchtime supervision and recommend that the government should give explicit encouragement to LEAs and governors to provide adequate funding for these activities in its expenditure plans.

CLASS SIZE

6 It is clear that most teachers see smaller classes as an important part of the answer to the problem of disruptive behaviour. This point is made in most of the submissions from the teachers' professional associations and in many letters from individual teachers. The majority of the teachers in our survey identify smaller classes as one of the things that would help them most. We therefore expected to find evidence that smaller classes meant better behaviour and looked very carefully for it.

7 The ratio between the number of pupils and the number of teachers in an LEA (the pupil:teacher ratio or PTR) is often used as a crude indicator of school staffing levels. There are considerable variations in this ratio between LEAs. In January 1987 average primary PTRs in English LEAs ranged from about 17:1 to about 24:1 and average secondary PTRs from about 12:1 to about 17:1. The national average PTR fell from just over 18:1 in 1983 to just over 17:1 in 1987. This must, however interpreted, reflect some improvement in provision. But average PTRs tell us very little about actual class sizes in individual schools, some of which will have ratios outside these ranges. They also tell us nothing about the nature of different schools' catchment areas. Aware of these limitations, we concluded that it would be misguided to look for any general relationship between an LEA's overall PTR and standards of behaviour in its schools.

8 We next decided to look for information about relationships between staffing levels and behaviour at individual school level. We asked our survey team to look at the responses made by teachers in 40 primary and secondary schools serving disadvantaged inner city catchment areas. They could find no significant relationship between the seriousness of the behaviour problems perceived by teachers in these schools and differences between their individual PTRs.

9 We knew that even individual school PTRs are not a very good guide to class sizes. They include heads and other senior staff who may do little or no teaching. In a primary school, the size of different age groups can affect class sizes and the age range within them considerably. Secondary schools with small sixth forms may have larger classes lower down the school than those with larger sixth forms or with none. There may also be marked differences in size between fourth or fifth year groups doing different subject options. We therefore decided that we needed information about the relationship between the size of individual classes and behaviour.

10 Research into the effects of class size seems to have concentrated more on academic achievement than on behaviour, and there does not seem to be any clear consensus among researches on whether smaller classes produce better results in either area. Studies by Glass and his colleagues in the USA in the early 1980s appeared to show that class size was a key factor in raising pupil achievement, but this work has come under some criticism in recent years. In this country Rutter looked for the relationship between class size and behaviour of the third year classes of secondary schools in his sample. Class sizes ranged from 22 to 30. He found no significant association between the size of these classes and the standard of behaviour observed. In his study of junior schools, Mortimore found some association between smaller classes and better behaviour. He found that teachers of smaller classes made more use of praise and neutral comments rather than critical comments about pupils' behaviour. The difference between these findings suggests that there may be a case for smaller classes for younger pupils.

11 The weight of professional opinion which considers that a general reduction in class sizes would be an effective means of improving standards of classroom behaviour is impressive and ought not be ignored. It is clearly the view of the majority of teachers that teaching smaller groups of pupils would reduce stress and make it easier for them to keep order in their classrooms. We could, however, find no consensus on what constitutes the optimum class size for this purpose.

12 This is not surprising. The range of other critical factors involved, such as the age and sex of the pupils, the experience and skill of the teacher and the teaching methods used, is very wide.

13 We have already emphasised that, for most of the time, most classes are well behaved and well taught. We do not accept, therefore, that a reduction in the number of pupils in all classes across the board would be an appropriate response, even if it were affordable. Much of the very considerable cost would be applied where it was not needed.

14 We consider that, in schools where discipline problems are acute, there is a case for deploying extra teachers as one medium term measure. This can at present be done by LEAs on a pragmatic basis and we recognise it as an effective strategy in appropriate cases. We regard this as particularly important in primary schools because large classes are more common there, and because it is important to establish habits of good behaviour as early as possible in a pupil's school career. We recognise that there are different ways of deploying extra staff. Behaviour may be improved by reducing class sizes, by introducing skills which are in short supply among the regular staff of the school in question, by reducing teachers' class contact time or by a combination of all these and other measures.

15 It has been pointed out to us that most primary teachers have no non- teaching periods. Demands on teachers have been increased by recent developments like the General Certificate of Secondary Education, and will be further increased by the changes which will be brought about by the Education Reform Act 1988, such as the national assessment system. If implemented, some of our recommendations would have the same effect in some schools. We have no way of assessing the effect of teachers' workloads on their performance as class managers.

16 Throughout this enquiry we have sought only to make recommendations that can be supported either by evidence that was already available or by the results of our own survey. Conclusive evidence of the sort needed to establish a firm relationship between pupil behaviour and class size is not available. The response to our own survey reveals a general belief in the virtue of reducing class sizes but no indication of what the actual size should be in any circumstances. We suspect that there are circumstances where that relationship is important and relevant to the effective deployment of staff resources; but information does not even exist to define accurately what those circumstances are. In this one area only we consider that further research would be justified.

17 Such research would have to be very carefully designed and take full account of existing work in this field. It would not be appropriate for us to suggest a detailed specification. We consider it particularly important for the relationships between pupils' behaviour and the following factors to be investigated:

17.1 the size and composition of classes,

17.2 teaching styles,

17.3 teacher stress, and

17.4 class contact time and teachers' workloads.

EXCLUSIONS

19 Pupils involved in serious or persistent misbehaviour may be excluded from school. They may be excluded for a fixed or an indefinite period. In the past this was called suspension. In the most serious cases they may be permanently excluded. In the past this was called expulsion.

20 Before 1986 there was no clear legal basis for dealing with exclusions. Different LEAs had different procedures. The intention of sections 23 to 27 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 was to make exclusion procedures clear and consistent. This part of the Act came into force for most schools from September 1988, but for voluntary aided schools will not do so until September 1989.

21 Four of the seven submissions we received from the heads' and teachers' professional associations commented on exclusion. Three recommended that the 1986 Act should be amended. All four referred to the question of reinstating excluded pupils. Under the 1986 Act only the head has the right to exclude a pupil. If a pupil is excluded for a fixed term or indefinitely, both the school's governing body and the LEA can order that the pupil should be reinstated. If a pupil is excluded permanently from a county or controlled school, the school's governing body and the LEA can direct that the pupil should be reinstated. The governing body alone has the power to direct that a pupil who has been permanently excluded from an aided or special agreement school should be reinstated. Provision is made for appeals against decisions not to reinstate a pupil following a permanent exclusion which has been confirmed by the LEA or governing body. This gives parents the right to put their child's case to an appeal committee. For county and controlled schools, that committee consists of members nominated by the LEA. They are members of the LEA itself, or its education committee, and other people who are not members of the LEA but have experience of education. Those who are members of the LEA or its education committee may not outnumber the other members by more than one, and a person who is a member of the education committee may be the chairman. Governors can appeal to the same committee against an LEA decision to reinstate a pupil. For aided schools the appeal committee is set up by the governing body.

22 The comments made about these procedures by the heads' and teachers' professional associations were as follows:

22.1 the Professional Association of Teachers and the National Association of Head Teachers recommended that the LEA should have no power to overrule decisions made by the head and governors;

22.2 the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NAS/UWT) recommended that staff in county and controlled schools should be given the right to appeal independently of the head and governing body against LEA decisions to reinstate pupils; and

22.3 the Secondary Heads Association did not recommend any change in the law but advised LEAs to be wary about overruling the decision of heads and governing bodies in cases of permanent exclusion.

24 The arguments for and against the LEA's powers to order the reinstatement of pupils seem to be more finely balanced. The issue was highlighted by the controversy surrounding the reinstatement of pupils to Poundswick School by Manchester LEA in 1985 which resulted in industrial action by some of the school's staff.

25 The strongest argument for removing the power of LEAs to direct the reinstatement of pupils lies in the damage which may be done to the authority and morale of the head and staff if pupils whom they wish to see permanently excluded are reinstated. We also recognise that reinstatement under these circumstances is unlikely to be successful in most cases, as the events leading to exclusion and the exclusion process itself may have done irreparable damage to relationships between staff and the pupil involved. This breakdown may also have an effect on the behaviour of other pupils. We therefore find it difficult to imagine that reinstatement of a permanently excluded pupil, against the wishes of the headteacher, in the school from which he or she had been excluded could be either justified or successful except under quite exceptional circumstances.

26 The case for leaving the present legal position unchanged can be supported by at least two arguments.

26.1 LEAs need to have reserve powers to enable them to discharge their statutory responsibility for providing education. LEAs have to provide enough school school places to meet the needs of their areas. Governors do not have an equivalent responsibility. The governors of aided schools already have the last word on permanent exclusions, but only about 17% of schools fall into this category.

26.2 There is also real concern arising from our lack of knowledge about the reasons for existing patterns of exclusion. Evidence that we received from a number of LEAs suggests that there are striking variations between the exclusion rates of different schools which cannot be explained by differences in catchment area. This is confirmed by research findings. In their study of exclusions in Sheffield, Galloway and his colleagues (1982) found that six of the 37 secondary schools in the sample accounted for about half of all the exclusions. There is no evidence to suggest that schools with high exclusion rates achieve better standards of behaviour than those with lower rates. In chapter four we argue that the way in which schools are run has a strong influence on pupils' behaviour and that institutional change is the best way of improving standards in less effective schools. Heads can usually persuade governors to back their decisions to exclude pupils. It can be argued that the absence of an external check from the LEA would encourage some schools to export more of their problems, and reduce the head's incentive to review and change the features of the school's organisation which make bad behaviour more likely.

28 The effect of schools opting out of LEA control from September 1989 is another unknown factor in this area. The governing bodies of grant- maintained schools will have the power to exclude pupils without reference to LEAs. If significant numbers of schools opt out in particular areas, the role of LEAs as providers of alternative places for excluded pupils may need to be more systematically reviewed. The future number and distribution of grant-maintained schools is as yet unknown. The pattern will take some years to emerge. We believe that it would be prudent to monitor developments for five years before reviewing their impact on the role of LEAs.

29 The proposed national reporting system for serious incidents and permanent exclusions could be used to monitor the operation of the exclusion procedures established by the 1986 Act. We therefore recommend:

29.1 that the DES and the Welsh Office should systematically monitor for five years the operation of the procedures for the exclusion of pupils from schools established by the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; (R137.1) and

29.2 that at the end of this period the Secretaries of State should decide, in the light of all the evidence then available, what amendments, if any, should be made to these provisions. They should act sooner if the accumulating evidence warrants it. (R137.2)

30.1 that the appropriate Secretary of State should require any LEA which directs the reinstatement of a permanently excluded pupil to a school against the wishes of the headteacher and governing body to supply him with a written report of the circumstances contributing to this decision within 14 days; (R138.1)

30.2 that the headteacher should be asked to supply his own account to him within the same period; (R138.2) and

30.3 that similar procedures should apply in cases where the governing body directs the reinstatement of a permanently excluded pupil against the wishes of the headteacher. (R138.3)