NEWS SecEd The ONLY weekly voice for secondary education To subscribe, call 01722 716997


SecEd Tel: 020 7738 5454 Fax: 020 7978 8319 www.sec-ed.com info@sec-ed.com sales@sec-ed.com


Managing director Matt Govett


Publisher and editor Pete Henshaw, 020 7501 6771 editor@sec-ed.co.uk Deputy editor David Taylor, 020 7501 6772 david.taylor@markallengroup.com Reporter


Daniel White, 020 7501 6750 daniel.white@markallengroup.com Illustrator Christos Mais


SecEd is advised by an editorial advisory panel. Members include: Paul Ainsworth: vice-principal, Belvoir High School, Leicestershire. Mark Blois: partner, Browne Jacobson (education law solicitors). Peggy Farrington: headteacher, Hanham High School, South Gloucestershire. Mike Griffiths: headteacher, Northampton School for Boys. Hilary Moriarty: national director, Boarding Schools’ Association. Neill Morton: headteacher, Portora Royal School, Enniskillen. Jo Smith: vice-principal, Long Field School, Melton Mowbray. Tina Stockman: teacher, Harlaw Academy, Aberdeen. Dr Bernard Trafford: headteacher, The Royal Grammar School, Newcastle upon Tyne. Simon Viccars: headteacher, Leon School and Sports College, Milton Keynes. Alex Wood: headteacher, Wester Hailes Education Centre, Edinburgh.


Sales department Associate publisher and advertising manager Abdul Hayee, 020 7501 6767 abdul.hayee@markallengroup.com Classified sales Rachel McElhinney, 020 7501 6728 rachel.mcelhinney@ markallengroup.com


Circulation department Tel: 01722 716997 Fax: 01722 716926 email: subscriptions@ markallengroup.com Subscription manager Chris Hoskins Circulation director Sally Boettcher


UK annual rates: Personal £52 Institutional (libraries, companies etc) £115 European annual rates: Personal £92 Institutional £165


Rest of world annual rates: Personal £113 Institutional £209


Printed by Pensord Press, Wales


Published by


Education Bill concentrates on discipline


by Daniel White


Changes to Ofsted inspections, exclusion powers, and plans to allow anonymity for teachers accused of misconduct are among proposed new legislation outlined in last week’s Education Bill. The Bill largely confirms what


the coalition government had out- lined in its November White Paper, The Importance of Teaching. If passed into law, the legislation


will allow the government to step in if a school is classed as “failing”. This will mean that the secretary of state would be able to direct a local authority to close schools that are “judged to be in special measures, require significant improvement, or have failed to comply with a warn- ing notice”. He would also be able to force local authorities to give a warning notice to an underperform- ing school. Elsewhere, the Bill will give


powers to headteachers to punish students for bad behaviour on the way to or from school. Furthermore, increased search


powers are outlined for teachers. Reforms would give teachers the right to search pupils of different sex without another member of staff being present if they believe that the


student could cause serious harm. Also, they will be able to search for and confiscate “items that disrupt learning”, including mobile phones and pornography. The Bill would also remove the


need for schools to give 24 hours’ notice prior to detentions and will give headteachers the final say on exclusions – with decisions being able to be reviewed, but the appeals panel losing its power to overturn them. The abolition of a number of edu-


cation quangos is confirmed in the Bill, including the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, and the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency. Some of the powers from these


bodies will be given to the secre- tary of state under the legislation, including investigating allegations of teachers’ misconduct, teacher training and the school curriculum. Elsewhere, the Bill would com-


pel the exams watchdog, Ofqual, to compare exam results internation- ally and it will also be asked to determine whether certain exams that are currently deemed to be equivalent to a GCSE should con- tinue to be. Proposals have also been put in place to raise the leaving age from 16 to 18 with all children


expected to stay in education or job training until the age of 18 by 2015. When it comes to inspection,


the Bill sets out to make outstand- ing schools exempt from routine Ofsted inspections unless problems are recognised. Also, the inspectorate will


now have a narrowing focus with inspectors measuring schools on four key areas: pupil achievement, quality of teaching, leadership and management, and the behaviour and safety of pupils. Michael Gove, education sec-


retary, said: “The most important thing in schools is discipline and behaviour. We need to restore the authority of the teacher and that is why we have given them new pow- ers to make it easier to exclude or detain children who misbehave and protect them from false allegations. “It is vitally important teachers


have the ability to search students so that anything that has been brought into schools with the intention to cause trouble can be taken from the student and confiscated if necessary. Mobiles or flip video cameras are being taken into schools and being used to encourage bullying and sometimes they have inappropriate material on them. So we have said teachers can then take them, delete the files before giving them back.”


Charities raise concerns over SEN


Special needs charities have expressed concern after the publi- cation of the Education Bill. The National Deaf Children’s


St Jude’s Church, Dulwich Road Herne Hill, London SE24 0PB www.markallengroup.com


Society (NDCS) and Sense have both expressed fears that the plans will leave SEN children without the support they need at school. It comes because of the Bill’s


plans to accelerate the expansion of the academies programme, includ- ing now allowing pupil referral units and special schools to convert. The NDCS is worried that the


MA Education Ltd is an independent publishing company also responsible for education titles Delivering Diplomas, Headteacher Update, Fundraising for Schools, Early Years Educator and 5to7 Educator.


© All rights reserved. No part of SecEd may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of MA Education The publisher accepts no responsibility for any views or opinions expressed in SecEd.


ISSN 1479-7704


programme is being accelerated without adequate funding arrange- ments to safeguard the support that deaf children need. The charity says the funding


must be protected to provide teach- ers of the deaf and specialist equip- ment. A statement said: “We are concerned that if funding for sup- port for deaf children is delegated to all academies it will be spread so


2


thinly that individual schools won’t be able to afford the essential help that deaf children need.” Brian Gale, director of policy


and campaigns at the NDCS, said: “We are calling on the government to put adequate funding arrange- ments in place for deaf children to ensure they get the vital support they need.” Elsewhere, Sense, the nation-


al deaf-blind charity, has raised fears that disabled children will be “pushed into the margins” as the state becomes less involved in edu- cating children. Steve Rose, head of children’s


specialist services, said: “By ending local authority oversight of schools the government risks undermining parental choice by making special education schools the only real option for deaf-blind and other disa- bled children. “Local authorities must retain a


leading role in funding and devel- oping education services for chil- dren with complex needs.” There was further anger over the


Bill’s expansion of the academies programme after it emerged that the legislation would force local authorities to seek proposals for academies if they believe there is need for a new school in their area. Chris Keates, NASUWT gen-


eral secretary, said: “The secretary of state is being disingenuous in seeking to imply that local authori- ties have the ‘choice’ to set up a free school or an academy. The fact is they have no choice.” Christine Blower, National


Union of Teachers general secretary, added: “By presuming any new school which opens will do so as an academy or free school, the govern- ment makes it clear that it intends to railroad this costly, unproven and unnecessary programme through.”


The Education Bill – the reaction


The opposition: Labour this week accused education secretary Michael Gove of taking schools “back to the 1950s” with his Education Bill. While welcoming moves to give teachers anonymity when facing allegations and to improve behaviour in schools, shadow education secretary Andy Burnham said the reforms overall were “elitist”. He added: “This government came into office promising freedom and autonomy for teachers – but their education reforms amount to a single, narrow vision imposed on every child in every school, with little evidence of how it will raise standards. It is a plan for an atomised school system which will not deliver for every child. Michael Gove wants to take our schools back to the 1950s.”


The headteacher: Mike Griffiths, headteacher at Northampton School for Boys, welcomed the changes to Ofsted inspections and also the measures on behaviour. He said: “The concentration of Ofsted on what really matters in schools is a huge improvement on the monster that had been created. To have four core areas of focus will be a good deal for children and parents. The Bill also gives the clear signal to children and parents that the government will be supporting teachers and heads when dealing with youngsters who would otherwise put in jeopardy the learning not only of themselves but also of their classmates.”


The teacher:Kester Brewin, a maths teacher at Sydenham High School for Girls in London, welcomed the Education Bill as a whole, but remains cautious on the direction of the curriculum. He told SecEd: “The strengthening of heads’ powers to make sure schools are safe and disciplined places are to be welcomed, as is the removal of the power of appeals panels to force schools to reinstate permanently excluded pupils and the granting of anonymity to teachers accused of misconduct. However, the large part of this legislation is about centrally directing the curriculum, and this is wrong-headed.”


Association of Teachers and Lecturers: The ATL welcomed moves to provide greater protection for teachers from malicious allegations, but ultimately general secretary Dr Mary Bousted, said the union “could not support the Bill’s central message that schools should be less concerned about each child as a whole, and only concerned with narrow academic targets”. She added: “We are incredibly concerned about the lack of accountability of academies which will increase when control and oversight transfers from the Young People’s Learning Agency for England back to the Department for


Education. We are worried that there is nothing (in the Bill) about giving away millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to unelected and unaccountable people so that they can set up new schools, however disruptive that is.”


Association of School and College Leaders: ASCL has welcomed the commitment in the Bill for more powers to deal with behaviour, especially, the power to search for mobile phones, which it says will help tackle cyber-bullying. However, general secretary Brian Lightman added: “The government must not forget that the majority of schools are orderly and calm places. Our education system is not ‘broken’ and discipline has not ‘broken down’. Statements like this give a completely misleading picture.”


National Union of Teachers: The NUT said the Education Bill will lead to a “greater centralisation of power”. General secretary Christine Blower said: “We welcome protection for teachers and the intention to remove bureaucracy but, as ever, the devil will be in the detail.” Ms Blower raised concerns over the plans for the education secretary to take on the powers of the GTCE to investigate allegations of misconduct. She added: “While the GTCE didn’t exactly win the hearts and minds of teachers, there is no mention of what it will be replaced by. It will however be a problem if it is the secretary of state who will then be acting as judge and jury for the profession.”


National Association of Head Teachers: The NAHT welcomed the changes to the Ofsted framework, the powers on behaviour and the protection of teachers from malicious allegations. However, general secretary Russell Hobby said: “We remain concerned about proposals to hold schools accountable for things over which they have no control – like the funding and performance of excluded pupils.” Mr Hobby added: “While we understand the motivation behind the dismantling of agencies such as the GTCE and TDA, the profession will need convincing that an increase in the powers and responsibilities of the secretary of state does not signal a decrease in accountability and effectiveness.”


NASUWT: The NASUWT dismissed the Bill this week as having been constructed by “power junkies”. General secretary Chris Keates said: “The rhetoric surrounding the Bill is ‘localism’. The reality is an unprecedented, massive centralisation of power. The Bill gives the secretary of state for education around 50 new powers. He can seize land to set up new schools, revise local authority budgets, and close schools on a whim.”


Send your news in to: news@sec-ed.com or call 020 7501 6771


SecEd • February 3 2011


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