SecEd The ONLY weekly voice for secondary education Inside this issue


Review signals overhaul of alternative provision


White, British


boys on FSM Of all the groups on free school meals, White British boys are among the lowest achieving. A ground-breaking project is looking at the secrets to success with these often challenging students Pages 8 and 9


Behaviour tips


John Wootton's blog about one of his classes offers some useful and practical guidance on effective behaviour management Page 13


Asbestos advice


An asbestos specialist looks at best practice for schools – whether they are managing the deadly substance or removing it completely Page 7


SecEdonline


For regular news updates and our full editorial archive, visit www.sec-ed.co.uk. You can also sign up to receive SecEddigital, a free regular e-bulletin which includes a virtual edition of SecEd by emailing editor@sec-ed.co.uk. Follow us on Twitter at www. twitter.com/SecEd_Education


Pupil referral units (PRUs) should convert to academy status and teachers need to become specialists in managing disruptive students, the government has been told. It follows a review of alternative


provision carried out by the Department for Education’s (DfE) behavior tsar Charlie Taylor. The government immediately


accepted all of the recommendations in his report, including the stripping local authorities of commissioning powers and handing these to schools. In his review, Mr Taylor said


that many children who are referred to pupil referral units (PRUs) and alternative providers come from “chaotic homes” in which drinking, drug-taking, mental health issues and domestic violence are common problems. The latest figures show that 14,050 students are currently attending PRUs and 23,020 are in other alternative provider settings on either a full or part-time placement. The review said that PRUs


should work independently and away from local authority control. It said conversion to academy status would provide them with greater freedoms to offer a wider range of services. The report states: “By 2018,


the only PRUs remaining would be those where maintenance by the local authority added value to the operation of the PRU. To achieve this, the secretary of state may need to intervene to oblige PRUs to enter into academy arrangements in cases where the PRU is not failing, but is not delivering expected outcomes.” The report said that schools


instead of local authorities should be responsible for commissioning


Issue 312 • March 15 2012 Price £1.00 www.sec-ed.com


Schools are told they will now commission PRU services by Daniel White


schools can better cater for children’s needs.” He also said that Ofsted should


challenge schools on their use of alternative provision. Mr Taylor criticised current


alternative provision for having “many flaws” and courted controversy by accusing some providers of operating in a “holiday camp atmosphere” without academic challenge. Mr Taylor said all children


in alternative providers, should receive appropriate and challenging English and maths teaching. He said this could be offered in partnership with other providers or schools if the child is educated in more than one place. Secondary schools, PRUs and


alternative provision and PRU services. It also said that the DfE should stop maintaining a central register for alternative provision providers, calling it a local issue. However, the plan sparked


a backlash from headteachers. Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that academy status was not a “silver bullet”. He added: “Giving a school a different name does not change its ethos or miraculously equip its staff with better skills and renewed motivation.” Brian Lightman, general


secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, echoed this sentiment. He added: “It is essential that local arrangements are co-ordinated, otherwise some young people will remain off the radar with potentially disastrous consequences. There is no doubt that some schools have the capacity to commission local provision, but


this should be in collaboration with other schools. It will therefore be important for local authorities to retain a role.” Elsewhere, Mr Taylor, who is


headteacher of The Willows Special School in London, said that young trainee teachers should be able to do part of their training in PRUs in order to develop key skills in managing disruptive behaviour. Currently, PRUs are not allowed


to offer training as part of the Graduate Teacher Programme and students cannot do an assessed teaching practice and teachers cannot complete Qualified Teacher Status or an NQT year in a PRU. However, the government agreed


and has said that from September this will change. Mr Taylor added: “The skills required to teach effectively in a PRU are eminently transferable to mainstream or special schools. The best PRUs are an underused resource that could be


A new curriculum for 11-14 year-olds


A structured, rigorous, exciting curriculum to support improved learning, student engagement, international mindedness and personal development for 11-14 year olds. Thirty interdependent, subject-driven units each focus around a challenging big idea and provide a blend of individual and shared, active learning experiences to help teachers help students develop their learning. Written for teachers by teachers, the IMYC has been created and developed by Fieldwork Education; providing 25 years of learning-focused support for schools around the world.


Contact us to receive your FREE IMYC Information Pack. Please mention SECED15MAR12. Tel: 020 7531 9696 Email: imyc@greatlearning.com www.greatlearning.com/imyc/secedmar


From Fieldwork Education, a division of the World Class Learning Group © WCL Group Limited. All rights reserved.


used to improve both their own and the wider schools’ workforce.” However, SecEd editorial


advisor Mike Griffiths, headteacher at Northampton School for Boys, warned that young teachers need to “develop the skills of teaching first, then seek to enhance these with the extra skills required in any alternative provision”. Mr Lightman added: “There


are instances where it would make sense, but given the challenges these pupils bring, it seems that putting young, inexperienced trainee teachers in that situation would not usually be in the best interest of the teacher or the pupils.” Mr Taylor also said that schools


should use the money they currently spend on alternative provision to “build up their capacity for managing pupils’ behaviour”. He recommended: “By intervening earlier and using more focused placements in alternative provision,


alternative providers will also be asked to work with primary schools in a bid to spot and stop problems early. An example in the review was that of Mossbourne Academy in London, which runs “nurture groups” in years 7 and 8 for the most vulnerable students. In a letter to Mr Taylor, education


secretary Michael Gove asked him to work with the DfE to implement the recommendations and requested a progress update in June. He wrote: “Alternative provision


should ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils have just as much chance of succeeding as their peers. I accept all your recommendations. There is some excellent alternative provision. But we both know the overall standard isn’t nearly good enough. The organisation of this sector needs to be completely redrawn, learning from what has worked in school reform.” To read the report in full, visit www.education.gov.uk


UK news n SecEd: On Your Side n Independent thinking n NQT diary n Union address n Managing ICT n At the chalkface


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