COALITION WATCH


Heads unsure over government’s new plans for discipline


by Pete Henshaw


An uncertain reaction has followed the government’s plans to allow schools to punish student misbehaviour “anytime, anyplace, anywhere”. The education secretary, Michael


Gove, outlined the proposals dur- ing his speech to the Conservative Party Conference last week, but faced immediate accusations that the powers already exist after being introduced under Labour. On top of this, headteachers gave


a mixed reaction, with one telling SecEd that they would be cautious about punishing students for misde- meanours on the weekend. Mr Gove told the conference


in Birmingham: “At the moment heads are prevented from dealing with their pupils if they run wild in a shopping mall or behave anti- socially in town centres. So we will change the rules to send one clear and consistent message. Heads will have the freedom they need to keep pupils in line – anytime, anyplace, anywhere.” However, Christine Blower,


general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said that Mr Gove’s “sweeping pledge is pres- ently without substance”. She added: “Pupils are already


subject to disciplinary powers when outside of school grounds.” Chris Keates, general secretary


of the NASUWT, added: “The announcement of ‘new’ powers for schools to discipline pupils, in his words ‘anytime, anyplace, any- where’ – his Martini approach to discipline – was introduced by the last government.”


Meanwhile, one headteacher


told SecEd that he would “draw the line” at attempting to punish reports of misbehaviour in the late evening or at weekends. Jacques Szemalikowski from


Hampstead School in north London added: “Certainly I’ve always acted on any unacceptable behaviour to and from school, especially when students are in uniform. However, there needs to be a recognition of the difference between powers and responsibility in these cases.” Kester Brewin, a teacher at


Sydenham High School for Girls in south London, said that it would be “stretching the mandate of schools far too far”. He added: “We are ‘in loco


parentis’ in school time, yes, but outside of that the community in general should be taking corporate responsibility for children’s behav- iour, not schools, and parents in par- ticular ought to be looking to their


own responsibilities, rather than once again abdicating – and thus risking shifting blame – to schools.” However, Simon Viccars, head


at Leon School and Sports College in Milton Keynes, said: “If the school can be identified (such as uniform wearing, external presenta- tion etc) and student behaviour is prejudicial, then it is addressed as ‘conduct that brings the school’s good name into disrepute’.” Shadow schools minister


Vernon Coaker blasted Mr Gove’s proposals. He said: “Teachers already have very clear powers to use reasonable physical force where necessary and to discipline pupils for bad behaviour on the journey to and from school. To imply other- wise is misleading and undermines the confidence of teachers in using the tough powers the last Labour government gave them.”


• See page 6 – SecEd: On your side. Union seeks assurances over pupil premium


The prime minister’s comments on the proposed pupil premium have caused a teaching union to write to the government seeking clarification. During his address to the


Conservative Party Conference, David Cameron made reference to the pupil premium scheme. He said his government would “use a pupil premium to make sure kids from the poorest homes go to the best schools, not the worst”. Details have not been forthcom-


ing of how the proposed premium might operate or be funded, but up until now it was understood that it


would provide additional funding for all schools to help them support disadvantaged pupils. Mr Cameron’s comment this


week sparked a backlash from the NASUWT. General secretary Chris Keates said: “It now appears that it is a premium to enable some pupils to gain entry into what the prime minister calls ‘the best schools’. “This sounds very much like


either the prelude to the introduc- tion of a voucher system or a return to the assisted places scheme, for which many die-hard Tories har- bour an undying affection. “Unless this is a slip of the


British history to be at heart of new curriculum


Television historian Professor Simon Schama is to advise the government on how to put British history “at the heart of a revived national curriculum”. In his address to the


Conservative Party Conference, education minister Michael Gove said that no pupil should leave school without learning the his- tory of Britain. He said he would be tasking


the national curriculum review with “ensuring that narrative British history is put back at the heart of the school curriculum”, and that Prof Schama is to act as an advisor in this process. Mr Gove said: “One of the


under-appreciated tragedies of our time has been the sunder- ing of our society from its past. Children are growing up ignorant of one of the most inspiring sto- ries I know – the history of our United Kingdom.” However, Mr Gove this week


was told to stop meddling in teach- ers’ affairs. Dr Melvyn Roffe, prin- cipal of Wymondham College in


Norfolk urged Mr Gove to let the professionals lead on curriculum. He told us: “I thought the gov-


ernment was in favour of letting professionals make professional decisions about schools and the curriculum. Obviously not where history is concerned. I don’t disa- gree with him, but I don’t accept that the secretary of state should be writing the curriculum.” Dr Bernard Trafford, head at


the Royal Grammar School in Newcastle, added: “Politicians should take an interest in knowing that what’s taught is rigorous and valuable, but it’s not their place or area of expertise to say what should be in history or in English.” Mr Gove also said he would


be asking exams regulator Ofqual to ensure that all GCSEs “include suitable requirements to take full account of accuracy in spell- ing, punctuation and grammar”. Ofqual will be looking at how best to do this and will publish its proposals in due course.


• See page 6 –SecEd: On your side


tongue or merely empty rhetoric, we appear to be witnessing a sig- nificant policy shift with regard to the pupil premium. Do the Liberal Democrats know?” Ms Keates said she would be


writing to the education minister, Michael Gove, to seek clarification. It comes as a new research


paper is published suggesting the best ways for the government to fund its proposed pupil premium. Funding the Pupil Premium:


Fairness for Young People and Parents, was published by CfBT Education Trust this week and says that the fairest way to raise the


money needed to fund a pupil pre- mium would be by cutting child benefit for 0 to 16-year-olds. The report authors, education


consultants Mark Corney and Mick Fletcher, looked at the possible con- sequences of shifts in funding to support the premium. They state that cutting non-


school budgets such as Sure Start, childcare and youth services would be unfair, while cuts in 16 to 19 expenditure to fund the pre-16 pre- mium could also harm disadvan- taged young people. Mr Corney said: “As the Treasury scrambles to find an extra £4 billion


in welfare cuts it remains unclear how much new money, if any, the Department for Education will get for this flagship policy. Social jus- tice, however, requires that both the means and the ends are fair.” Elsewhere, the authors said that


at age 16 to 19, child benefit could be merged with 16 to 19 child tax credit, or both could be integrat- ed within Education Maintenance Allowances to form a means-tested “Youth Allowance”. They contend that this would encourage more young people from poorer back- grounds to stay on in post-16 educa- tion. Visit www.cfbt.com


More local authorities to take legal action over BSF


Two more local authorities are taking legal action over the axing of their Building Schools for the Future (BSF) plans by the coalition government. Last week, SecEd reported on


the joint legal action being taken by Nottingham City Council and Luton Borough Council. The coun- cils are seeking permission to apply for a judicial review over education secretary Michael Gove’s decision to scrap their BSF schemes. This week Waltham Forest in


east London and Sandwell in the West Midlands also announced that they are seeking judicial reviews. They were backed by shadow


schools minister Vernon Coaker who said it was “right and proper that these councils should stand up for taxpayers”. Waltham Forest Council has


spent £17 million on BSF so far and said its cancellation “is having a devastating impact on thousands of young people in Waltham Forest who are learning in outdated and unsuitable classrooms and facilities”. Council leader Chris Robbins


4


said: “We’ve been doing everything we can to persuade them to change their minds. We’ve gone about this the right way and we’ve tried to come to a reasonable agreement with the government. It’s with a heavy heart that we’ve been forced to apply for a judicial review in order to do what is best for our pupils and our schools.” Meanwhile, Sandwell Borough


Council in the West Midlands saw nine projects scrapped and there was anger after its BSF scheme was initially listed as being saved, only for Mr Gove to admit he had made a mistake. The council contends that


Mr Gove’s decision to halt BSF schemes that had not been signed off by January 1 this year is unfair. It says that its BSF schemes were ready to proceed before this date but had to stick to a timetable imposed by Partnerships for Schools, the quango running BSF. Council leader Darren Cooper


said: “We are taking legal action because the government’s decision is irrational, unfair and short-sighted.


Why did they choose January 1 as the cut-off date? Was it just plucked out of the air? If we had been told that was the deadline we would have met it. Instead we did what we were told and spent money on pre- paratory work in good faith.” Mr Coaker added: “If the edu-


cation secretary’s decision is over- turned it would be a huge embar- rassment for him since he insisted on rushing this decision despite advice that a legal challenge was a real risk.” A Department for Education


spokesman said: “We understand people’s disappointment but the BSF programme was wasteful, needlessly bureaucratic and seri- ously behind schedule. It would have been inexcusable to have con- tinued with the programme. “Ministers have been clear that


the end of BSF is not the end of school rebuilding. That is why the government has launched a com- prehensive review of all capital spending in schools so that money goes to those schools in most dis- repair and to deal with the urgent demand for primary school places.”


Surrey plays down blanket academy proposals


Plans to turn every one of Surrey’s secondary schools into an academy are not set in stone, it was emphasised this week. Surrey County Council hit


the headlines last week after its education spokesman, Peter Martin, mooted the idea in a let- ter to education minister Michael Gove, In the letter, Cllr Martin sug-


gested the move was a possibil- ity under the coalition govern- ment’s Academies Act, which was rushed through Parliament in the summer. Surrey has 53 secondary


schools, 11 of which are rated as “outstanding” by Ofsted mean- ing they could fast-track under the new legislation to become independent, state-funded acad- emies. However, Surrey County


Council’s press office this week played down the headlines, say- ing it was only one of many options. This was quickly followed


by a formal statement from Cllr Martin. He said: “We have made no decisions or adopted any for- mal policy position in response to the government’s academy programme. “We are at a very early


stage in the development of our vision for the county’s educa- tion. Our overriding concern is to provide the best possible solutions for Surrey’s children, and this is just one of many proposals.”


SecEd • October 14 2010


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16