Official Report 267KB pdf
Item 2 on our agenda is on school discipline. This item continues our discussion from a previous meeting. We will take evidence on the Executive's position paper on school discipline; we are pleased to welcome Executive officials Jo Young and Ruth Campbell for their delayed moment of glory with the committee. Would you like to say anything by way of introduction?
You asked us for a position paper. The paper that we have circulated was prepared a couple of months ago, round about the time of the debate in Parliament on "Better Behaviour—Better Learning". The Executive's position was set out during that debate by the ministers who are responsible for education. I imagine that the committee would like to go through some of the detail of both the position paper and the paper from the Scottish Parliament information centre, which was produced in August and gives a comprehensive overview of the issues. We will be happy to talk through those issues and to come back to you on anything that we cannot cover today.
The SPICe paper gave a good overview and a lot of factual information about discipline. Members will be aware that discipline is a complex issue. Promoting positive behaviour in schools is about teachers and the ethos of the school but it is also about care and welfare and about removing a range of barriers to learning, including pupil disaffection. The Executive is taking a broad approach. That approach is largely covered in "Better Behaviour—Better Learning: Report of the Discipline Task Group" but it has been added to by a range of other things, such as the co-ordinated support plans that have been talked about this morning. In addition, there are other ways of ensuring that children and young people are supported in overcoming whatever barriers to learning may be affecting their behaviour.
I would like to ask about bullying prevention. In the past, leaflets have been issued by educational systems outside Scotland. What guidance and information are you now giving on such leaflets? Are the leaflets that you are producing working, do you feel that they are altogether satisfactory and is there a strong demand for them?
There is continuing demand for the leaflets and we continue to distribute them when requested. We are aware that we need continually to refresh awareness raising of bullying, and we are committed to producing a series of leaflets rather than just saying, "Here's our leaflet," and distributing it. We are working on a means of involving children and young people more in developing future materials, so that we have more to say on the matter.
Are you quite happy with the effectiveness of prevention services in trying to prevent bullying rather than picking up the problem afterwards?
Bullying needs to be seen in the context of the whole school. As well as promoting other aspects of positive behaviour, one of the main aspects of preventing bullying is to promote a positive school ethos. The leaflets that we provide and the information that is provided to teachers through the anti-bullying network also help to prevent bullying. However, we must continue to produce information and to ensure that material is available to pupils, parents and teachers.
Before I ask my question, I would like clarification on section 7 of your paper, where you mention funding streams. You quote a figure of £10 million for "Better Behaviour—Better Learning", and then four other funding streams. Are those annual sums or are they totals over a period of years?
There is funding through the discipline task group allocation and through alternatives to exclusion. That is funding that authorities receive year on year.
So is the £11 million for alternatives to exclusion per annum rather than over three years?
It is per annum.
Thank you. That clarifies matters.
The authorities that are not participating withdrew for a range of reasons; there was no one specific reason. Some authorities took part in initial training and then decided not to progress with staged intervention because they were implementing other programmes. We are continually encouraging authorities to take up the offer of our support for staged-intervention training. It is encouraging that East Ayrshire Council is now co-ordinating training initiatives within Scotland, so that authorities do not have to send trainees down to England.
Is East Ayrshire Council going to evaluate the scheme as well as undertake the training?
Yes. One of the important aspects of staged intervention is dissemination. We must ensure that more practitioners and authorities are aware of what is going on in the schools that have implemented staged intervention, and of the success that they are achieving.
Do you intend to publish the findings of that particular programme to ensure that the Parliament and others can get the benefit of them?
Yes. We would like to produce a regular magazine that draws together the experience of practitioners who are involved.
I want to ask about initial teacher education and continuing professional development. One of the criticisms is that not enough core time has been allocated to initial teacher education and that it has been difficult for schools to find enough time to consider whole-school approaches and to develop individual teachers' skills. What is being done to ensure that that area of work is being given more time and made more of a priority?
You will be aware that a review of the whole area of initial teacher education is being carried out. As a result, I will not go into that matter. However, as far the recommendation in "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" on looking at teacher training is concerned, authorities report to us that they are focusing very much on the probationer induction programme and on ensuring that probationer teachers have specific training on promoting positive behaviour. Many authorities are setting up mentoring and other systems to ensure that probationer teachers are getting the right support. That is an encouraging step and we should see the benefits of it over time.
The minister confirmed that the review of initial teacher education would include classroom management and discipline issues. I assume that the committee has received information on the review's remit and membership. If not, I am sure that that can be made available.
I would be interested to find out how work on that whole area is being fed into the review of initial teacher education.
That information would be helpful.
I am interested in the results of the Educational Institute for Scotland survey and in recent newspaper reports that highlight teachers' frustration at the lack of support that they are receiving. They think that "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" has given them more work but without the resources to back them up. What feedback have you received on that issue? Is the crux of the problem resources, lack of staff development or a mixture of those, or is it because the policies that are set out in "Moving to mainstream" and "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" are not being fed through to staff, who therefore lack understanding of them? Do you have any insight into the background of that?
The authorities that have discussed with us their progress with "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" have largely been positive. Given that the report contains wide-ranging recommendations, I think that that is a very encouraging sign and indicates that the recommendations are hitting the mark with schools and authorities with regard to what they think will help to promote positive behaviour.
My point is that more young people in mainstream schools have been identified as having social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. From the EIS survey, which I believe was carried out in Dumbarton, from the feedback that I have received and from my own background, it is clear that ordinary class teachers feel a great deal of frustration about the support that they receive in working with young people. Have local authorities asked you for more staff development or more support staff, such as classroom assistants, to try to resolve the problem?
We have commissioned research to investigate how authorities are deploying additional staff through the range of funding streams, including the national priorities action fund. That will allow us to understand better how authorities deploy learning support, behaviour support, classroom assistants, behaviour coordinators, home-school link workers and the whole range of staff that schools now use to meet the challenge of the kinds of pupils whom you describe. Research is under way, and we will be able to report on it when it is complete.
Will you be considering the various means of funding as part of that research? There are community school roll-out funds and there is money for social inclusion partnerships, for example. Could it be investigated whether the multiplicity of funding streams is part of the problem? If the funding was cored, and if strategies were made more long term around that funding, perhaps people would have a better overview of what support will be on offer in their schools.
We have asked for specific feedback from authorities in their next report on "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" so that we can find out what packages of funding they are using to promote positive behaviour. We are aware that people in some parts of the country have social inclusion support, for example. We are trying to get a better picture about how money is being used.
Beyond that, we are considering how people are using funding streams in integrated or new community schools. In some places, that funding is being used in the context of changing children's services. We would like to find ways to make it easier for people to avoid having to go along too many different funding routes in the future. Ministers have made it clear that they want to work to the general principle of removing as much bureaucracy as possible, and not just in education.
Is it fair to say that most teachers have been complaining about a large increase in the incidence of low-level indiscipline, rather than in the number of major attacks on teachers? How will you be able to assess your success in that regard and in relation to the various funding streams? How will you know whether the various measures that have been taken are working or not?
As you will be aware, we have a number of statistical collections. Those for exclusion, attendance and absence are the key ones that indicate levels of pupil disaffection. There is also a collection of data on the incidence of antisocial behaviour and violence in schools. Because of the introduction of the Scottish exchange of educational data—ScotXed—we have been able to ensure that we are collecting information that we can look at intelligently so that instead of just getting broad headline figures we can dig deeper and find out what the differences are as regards different kinds of behaviour. That will be helpful in the long term.
I return to the question of children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. What approaches are being taken with regard to curriculum flexibility? One approach that I am interested in is called the nurture group approach, which I understand has been adopted by some primary schools in Glasgow and Lanarkshire. The kids who have such difficulties are taken out of the class and nurtured, as it were, and then returned to the class, where they often become exemplars. What kind of action are we taking along those lines? Will that kind of curriculum flexibility impact on the Executive's current curriculum review?
Most authorities have reported to us on their approaches to curriculum flexibility for older age groups, but fewer have reported on what they are doing by way of early intervention. We want to explore that area in more depth with the authorities. A number of issues arise to do with transitions. The transition from nursery school to primary school must be considered as well as the transitions from primary school to secondary school and from secondary school to adulthood. Nurture groups have been a useful idea—tried by a number of authorities—in considering the transition from nursery to primary and in ensuring that children have the social skills to cope with school. We want to draw on the experience of those groups. We have received evaluation reports and we hope to be able to share them with other authorities.
We have limited resources and it would be sensible to target them, using an early-intervention approach, to maximise impact. Do such early-intervention approaches come into the Executive's thinking?
One of the recommendations in "Better Behaviour—Better Learning" is that local authorities should look at early-intervention strategies, especially for children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Nurture groups are part of that approach. We want to explore with local authorities what else can be achieved. Many local authorities work hard—through sure start and other programmes at pre-school level—to identify children who will need additional support. They try to provide support in the transition from nursery school to primary school.
I was going to cover the areas that Rosemary Byrne covered, so I will now cover gender issues. The SPICe briefing paper highlighted the fact that far more boys than girls are excluded. As a result, resources are targeted at boys rather than at girls and girls' difficulties become invisible. In the review of policy, will you ensure that the needs of girls are not neglected just because boys present more obvious problems?
We are very carefully considering gender differences and what we can do for both boys and girls. That is another area in which we want to hear the views of local authorities. We have no specific plans at the moment, but we are aware of the issue that Fiona Hyslop raises.
Research shows that there are differences in the difficulties that are faced by boys and girls. The discipline task force has a clear plan of action and has identified best practice. This is an obvious case of an area in which we must avoid a gender divide. The behavioural issues that affect the new generation of young girls are perhaps different from those that some of us who are a bit older can remember. We do not want that generation to slip through the net just because you have not done work on the issue. The rolling out of policies and best practice and the work of the discipline task force is happening now; if no work is being done to address the gender divide, I am concerned about when it will be done.
There may be work going on that does not come under the initiatives that we have discussed. Initiatives can end up being labelled in one particular way. For example, I know that—
I do not mean that the girls' discipline agenda should be an initiative; I just mean that we must ensure that front-line services, provision and support in the classroom must address girls' needs as much as they do boys' needs. The last thing that we need is more initiatives—we want practical measures.
What I meant was that there might be other things happening—for example, through the health-promoting schools route, in which gender issues such as body image are being considered. We might be able to gain information from that without having to do a wholesale review. We can report back on different stages of the work.
It would be interesting to receive any reports on these issues.
I want to ask about the anti-bullying network. How does it come into the funding streams? You suggest that you will be going out to tender in a couple of years' time. Is funding for the anti-bullying network totally separate from local authority funding for dealing with bullying in schools? If it is put out to tender, will it affect that local authority funding?
No. The funding is totally separate.
Do you know roughly how much that funding comes to? Is it additional to the other funding streams mentioned in the position paper?
The funding is about £120,000 a year. We are commissioning a comprehensive needs assessment to ensure that the service that we contract in future is what stakeholders need.
Is there any evidence from uptake by parents and children that the service is being used and meeting demand?
It is being well used. Pupils, parents and teachers are using the phone line, the e-mail service and the website extensively.
When is the revised guidance on exclusions likely to be issued?
Shortly.
Will you ensure that you take into consideration young people with mental health problems, which are becoming a bigger issue in our schools? Following on from Fiona Hyslop's point about gender, I think that we must identify young people who have mental health problems and the treatment and support that are appropriate for them and their families. I know that that issue will overlap into other areas.
On the latter question, the revision of the data collection that I described will allow us to look more closely at the kinds of alternative provision that are available during an exclusion and the period of time for which they are provided. Those data will provide us with much more in-depth information.
It was about mental health issues.
Mental health issues are on the agenda. Indeed, we are discussing them with the mental health programme through the Health Department. The people involved in the programme are very interested in finding out how to address mental health issues in schools and we have to find the best way we can do that within the existing framework—which will include integrated community schools and the work on discipline and additional support needs that members heard about earlier—to ensure that whatever we do is embedded in the system and that we find any gaps. As you can imagine, there is a spectrum of activity between promoting mental well-being and finding out how teachers can identify children who have mental health problems and respond to them. We must think about all those issues.
Will you also examine the agencies that offer child and family mental health services in health board areas to find out whether what you are doing provides adequate support for young people and their families?
At the moment, we are simply trying to get a quick snapshot of local authority provision, put that together with the existing frameworks and identify a sensible way forward. However, we should bear it in mind that a lot of other activity is going on and we should not overload the system.
I wonder whether you would clarify a statistic for me. It is sometimes claimed that teachers are experiencing more difficulties as a result of pupils moving into main stream. How many youngsters are now in special education provision? Is there any significant difference between the number of youngsters in main stream now and the number in main stream in the past?
I would have to clarify that and get back to you.
That would be useful.
In paragraph 2.2 of the position paper, you refer to the summary report that is based on local authorities' interim reports. Are those interim reports published? If not, why not, bearing in mind the fact that local authorities have primary responsibility for delivery and should be accountable to local electorates in that regard?
We do not wish to burden local authorities with masses of reporting, and—
I am asking more about how reports are dealt with once they are made.
One of the reasons why we wanted to produce a summary report was to provide a public document that gave an overview. Together with authorities, we are still working on that now.
It is up to authorities to publish their own reports locally. I cannot think of any reason why they could not do so.
During the previous session, there was a similar issue with HECA reports—reports made under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. In that case, a national report was made, but there was some resistance to publishing the detail of local reports. There is perhaps an echo of that in this case. It is an important issue, and I would have thought that it might be reasonable for local authority interim reports to be made available either as part of the national report or in some other way. Could I ask you to take that point on board and have a think about it?
We have discussed how the thinking behind promoting positive behaviour is being fed into teacher education, and it would be useful to get more information about that. I would also welcome some feedback about how those curricular approaches that have proved successful are being fed into the review of the curriculum.
There are one or two things to which we will return. Are there any other matters that the committee wishes to raise?
We should also think about developments with the numbers of people in mainstream and special education.