The following statement was issued by Hackney NUT in connection with their successful amendment of a Conference 2001 motion on protecting teachers from unacceptable pupil behaviour. It is reprinted here as a succint résumé of the Union's thinking on inclusion.
"The Union needs to publicise its recognition that challenging behaviour is complex and caused by structural inequality and disadvantage in employment, housing, health and social provision. The situation is exacerbated by the negative effects of league tables and increasing competition in education as well as by the lack of training and a coherent, well-resourced strategy in schools.
With stressed teachers and schools dancing to the tune of the marketplace and Ofsted it is often easiest to identify the problem of disruption as resting in certain pupils who become labelled, demonised and punished for the school's failings.
Clearly the union must protect members and pupils from violence and disruption. But the Union faces a serious danger. If we adopt a position of supporting increased exclusion, without putting forward arguments for a strategy and resources for increasing schools' capacity to meet the needs of pupils who exhibit challenging behaviour, then in the long run we will only make the problem worse.
Having teacher and headteacher representatives on the independent appeal panels will help to make their decisions more realistic about what schools can do and currently cannot do. However it would be a mistake that would alienate parents and communities from teachers if these panels were made up of only teachers.
THE MECHANISM of linking targets for reducing exclusion to loss of pupil retention grant is one that distorts and distracts from any attempt to meet students' needs. The problem is the targets are in place without an overall strategy for developing the inclusion of those exhibiting challenging behaviour. This strategy must include the resourcing and development of:
1. Whole school policies on behaviour. Research carried out by Birmingham University has demonstrated that Secondary schools with a shared behaviour policy and strong leadership on this ethos exclude fewer pupils.
2. Adequate training for all staff on dealing with challenging behaviour. Such training is not generally available to trainee or in-service teachers. In parts of the world where it is such as Australia and South Africa teachers are more able to positively deal with disruption.
3. Sufficient extra staff for effective early intervention. Where schools have through use of mentors and others who can develop a relationship with pupils have reduced exclusion. Such staff must have adequate pay, career and training.
4. Counsellors in every school. Many schools in the US and Canada which have counsellors demonstrate the successful inclusion of pupils with challenging behaviour.
5. Effective support in school from mental health agencies. A small proportion of children who exhibit challenging behaviour have mental health problems and they could be helped to a much greater extent with early support.
6. A more flexible approach to the placement of pupils in alternative settings. The pupils remain on the roll of their mainstream school whilst attending on- site, off-site units. Pupil Referral Units, and Emotional and Behavioural Difficulty special schools with a view to their successful reintegration into their mainstream school. Pupils should not need to be off the role of their school to receive intensive support in other setting with a view to their re-integration.
7. Each LEA to have a Behaviour Support Team of experienced practitioners of sufficient size to work across all school; Such teams are essential to help schools develop effective policies and practices. Fair Funding is leading to the privatisation of these services with the closure of these teams and their role increasingly being taken by outside .consultants.
8. The changing of school funding arrangements to make the above possible. It needs to be possible for pupils to be double funded to remain on the roll of their mainstream school whilst getting support from other settings. This one move would remove much of the need for permanent exclusion.
If the NUT fails to adopt and develop th policy above we could stand accused of narrow self-interest which will do nothing to develop the capacity of our schools to educate and include children with challenging behaviour who very often are making a cry for help through their action: We must develop the capacity of our schools to meet these needs while at the same time fighting for the resources and training to make this a reality.
Re-printed by Suffolk NUT, April 2001.