School Discipline
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4067, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, on school discipline. We have a little flexibility on speaking times, but it is not measureless.
At the outset of the debate, I make it clear that it is my firm belief that the vast majority of pupils in our schools in Scotland are well behaved, well motivated and keen to succeed. However, it is sad that some pupils and their teachers have to put up with a small but nonetheless growing minority of persistent troublemakers who make life impossible for everyone else.
It is a source of considerable concern to me that groups such as the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the General Teaching Council for Scotland regard indiscipline in the classroom, particularly violent indiscipline, as an increasing problem for their members. The acting general secretary of the SSTA, Jim Docherty, said just a few months ago that the figures released by the Scottish Government bear no relation to the real situation in classrooms. Ronnie Smith of the EIS has said:
"the issue of pupil indiscipline is seldom far below the surface of the educational debate in Scotland … the evidence is that the problem is getting worse and consuming more and more of each teachers time."
It is even more concerning that there is such indiscipline in primary schools. We know that around 40,000 pupils are excluded from Scottish schools each year and that almost half of the exclusions involve the same pupil on more than one occasion. The most worrying thing of all is that physical attacks with weapons increased from 286 in 2006-07 to 366 in 2007-08.
However, the Scottish Government still refuses to allow the publication of the full facts. That is a little surprising, because the now Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said in a debate on a Conservative motion on education in 2005:
"At First Ministers question time on 20 January, I raised the serious issue of the proposal to end the publication of annual indiscipline statistics and to replace them with a three-yearly survey. A couple of weeks later, the Conservatives woke up, smelled the coffee and realised that the matter should be taken up—I applaud them for doing so. If we regard indiscipline as a serious issue, it is important that regular statistics be produced so that there can be accountability. The production of statistics every three years is not good enough."—[Official Report, 17 March 2005; c 15444.]
Does the cabinet secretary still agree with that?
The statistics are bad enough, but the fact that in 85 per cent of exclusions there is no proper educational provision while the pupil is away from school is worse still. That is staggering and unacceptable by any standards. It is little wonder that many in the teaching profession despair about what can be done.
It is not for me or any other member to comment on the details of specific cases, but the sad events surrounding the Mike Barile case in Dundee threw up a major outpouring of public concern, anger and discomfort because of our inability to tackle the problem. There was a host of articles in the Daily Express, The Courier, The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman—I have them in front of me—in which former teachers, former headteachers and former pupils said that indiscipline is the biggest problem that we face in Scottish schools. The Scottish Conservatives do not believe that any pupil who is guilty of such behaviour should be allowed anywhere near a mainstream classroom until they learn how to behave. We should learn lessons from the highly effective second chance units that have worked well in several states in America, in Northern Ireland and in Scandinavia, and we should pay strong attention to groups such as the Scottish Police Federation and our armed services personnel. Such groups believe that such policies can go a long way to sorting out persistent troublemakers and getting them to refocus their lives in a positive manner.
To those who think that I am being too harsh and that I have not signed up to the concept of inclusion in Scottish education, I say that inclusion should mean that all our pupils are able to work and learn in a disciplined environment without the fear of the bully or of retribution. If some people do not like that idea, that is tough.
We should not forget the huge range of voluntary sector groups that do much to help troubled youngsters make good. We have a wealth of talent in Scotland in Fairbridge, the Princes Trust, the eTEN project and in private sector groups such as Spark of Genius, for example. Those groups are often the unsung heroes when schools are unable to find a solution, and we need to do far more to support them. That is why we will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
That takes me to another issue. Every member knows that the best form of discipline is self-discipline and that that comes when pupils feel fully engaged and supported by a loving and caring family—my colleagues will develop that point—and when they pursue courses that they see as relevant, enjoyable and constructive in respect of what and how they learn. The curriculum for excellence should be well equipped in that respect, but its success will be compromised if there is not also a more extensive co-curriculum for all pupils, no matter their background or academic abilities. Evidence that was given in the recent inquiry by the Health and Sport Committee into health, physical education and sport issues laid bare the postcode lottery that exists with regard to the ease with which pupils can access a range of extra-curricular activities, which are taken for granted in many schools. The Government claims that it is keen to do something about that, but under its watch we are already seeing cutbacks in staffing in music, drama and outdoor education. Those staff are often crucial in running extra-curricular activities, and we should not underestimate the effects of that. If we can harness a childs interests in and outside the classroom, we will go a long way to channelling self-discipline in the right direction.
It is wrong to get too prescriptive about discipline in individual cases, because it should always be a matter for headteachers to decide what discipline procedures should operate in his or her school. However, they must be able to do that without fear of compromise or contradiction from either an overburdensome local authority structure that tends to assume that the one-size-fits-all approach suits everyone or excessive red tape. It should be the duty of national and local politicians to stay out of interfering in headteachers jobs, but it must also be our duty to debate the barriers that stand in their way and to give our fullest support to the teaching profession in its desire to remove those barriers.
I look forward to the Governments response and to the statement of a coherent strategy that says what needs to be done to tackle the bullies in the classrooms. The Scottish National Party said that it would provide that back in 2005.
I move,
That the Parliament deplores the rise in the number of exclusions from Scottish schools attributable to weapon attacks by pupils; notes the growing concern expressed by teachers and parents that serious and persistent offenders are not being punished appropriately; calls on the Scottish Government to publish detailed information at regular intervals on the level of reported physical and verbal attacks in schools, as called for by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning when in opposition, and believes that the Scottish Government should devolve more power to head teachers to deal with indiscipline in schools.
I welcome the opportunity to respond in the debate on behalf of the Government.
I welcome the decline in exclusions by more than 11 per cent between 2006-07 and 2007-08 and congratulate schools and local authorities on their concerted efforts to achieve that. However, like Liz Smith, I am concerned by the increase in exclusions as a result of physical assaults with weapons. Attacks with weapons are plainly wrong. They endanger and distress other pupils, teachers and staff as well as the perpetrators themselves. Apart from the serious physical danger that is involved, they are extremely disruptive to the education of our young people.
Although knife incidents in schools are extremely serious, they are rare. We must remember that the vast majority of our children and young people are well behaved and are a great credit to Scotland. However, the Government takes seriously the knife culture that is prevalent in certain areas of the country, and we are tackling it in partnership with other agencies in various ways. Our positive behaviour team, which receives more than £500,000 a year, is working throughout Scotland with schools and local authorities to promote a range of approaches to improve relationships and promote positive behaviour, from restorative practices to nurture groups.
The Government-funded national violence reduction unit, which receives £916,000 a year, has promoted programmes on the dangers of knife carrying. It has received further funding of around £80,000 to develop the medics against violence initiative, under which more than 65 senior medical practitioners will go into schools.
At a Government-hosted youth conference on violence and knife crime, we launched the Governments new knife crime youth engagement initiative. We have committed £500,000 to work with young people to prevent and reduce knife crime, under the new brand no knives better lives.
I totally accept that, but does the Government accept that pupils who carry out such physical attacks should not be in a mainstream classroom until they learn how to behave?
When an attack takes place with a knife or a weapon, that often becomes a matter for the courts rather than the school system. Any disposal after that is a matter for the courts as well as the school system. We want the minimum possible danger and fear in the classroom, which is what those initiatives aim to achieve.
In the curriculum for excellence, which Liz Smith mentioned, knife crime and risk-taking behaviour are recognised in the experiences and outcomes, under health and wellbeing and religious and moral education. In partnership with the included, engaged and involved steering group and other key stakeholders, the Government is drafting new guidance on exclusion that will consider how we provide more support to children and young people who are at risk of exclusion, particularly those who have been excluded several times.
I agree that we need regular information and evidence on physical and verbal attacks on school staff, and on the reporting of those incidents. I welcome the fact that the behaviour in Scottish schools research for 2009 is well under way. We commissioned the survey in partnership with the Scottish advisory group on behaviour in schools, which I co-chair with the education spokesperson of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We are committed to discussing the findings with the advisory group to inform future policy on behaviour in schools.
The survey is different from previous surveys and will give an up-to-date and accurate picture of behaviour in schools. A study is conducted every three years but, when the present one has reported, we will be able to determine better whether it provides sufficient information to monitor violence in schools and whether more frequent reporting or publication would add to our understanding of behaviour in schools. I recommend that members read the questions that are asked in the survey, which are different from those in previous surveys and which will elicit far more valuable information.
I am grateful to Mr Brown for the information that he has provided on the collection of information. However, when in opposition, his colleague Fiona Hyslop was clear on the issue. There was no doubt about her stance. She said:
"The production of statistics every three years is not good enough."—[Official Report, 17 March 2005; c 15444.]
Why has the SNP changed its mind on that issue?
The point that I have just made is that the present survey is substantially different from previous ones and will give us a lot more information. As I say, I recommend that members read the questions that are being asked. For example, there are questions about the nature of assaults, such as whether they are racially based and, if violence is involved, what type. The quality of the information that is gathered will allow us to decide on the need to publish on a three-year basis or otherwise. That is the sensible way in which to proceed. However, we are of course open to all views and constructive suggestions and we will listen carefully to the debate today.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I must make progress.
Headteachers and teachers have significant and sufficient powers to deal with indiscipline in schools, including powers to develop and implement school behaviour policies and to exclude pupils, after consulting as appropriate on removals from the register, as the local authority has a duty to continue to provide education. We acknowledge the previous Administrations move to devolve control and decision making on exclusion by leaving headteachers to decide how to deal with each incident on a case-by-case basis.
Given those measures, and the generally excellent behaviour of our young people—which should be re-emphasised—I am happy to move that the Parliament
"welcomes the 11% reduction in exclusions from Scottish schools from 2006-07 to 2007-08",
which I have mentioned. We should also acknowledge
"that appropriate support should be provided to the small number of children and young people who persistently misbehave".
Is the minister concerned about comments from the EIS and the SSTA, which have referred to the figures as unreliable and dumbed down?
That is exactly why we are collecting information on a broader and much more scientific basis, which will be the basis for future decisions. I could read out several quotations from the EIS that do not have the same emphasis that the motion has on the general nature of the problem in schools. The EIS says that such incidents are rare and that teachers generally manage them very well.
As I have said, we should acknowledge that headteachers have considerable power over school discipline through their responsibility for school discipline policies and their devolved responsibility for excluding pupils. We take on board Liz Smiths point that we should always rely on the headteacher in such matters. A headteacher in Glasgow, who will remain nameless, has said:
"School is the place where the positive messages are delivered."
That is an important point. When pupils are taken out of school, they are taken out of the headteachers control at the same time.
We should agree that the future policy on behaviour in schools should be informed by the survey that is being conducted, which will provide in-depth information. Before members consider pursuing further the aims that are set out in the motion, I suggest that they should read the detailed questions that are asked in the survey, if they have not already done so.
We should welcome the comments in Her Majestys Inspectorate of Education report "Improving Scottish education—A report by HMIE on inspection and review 2005-2008", which in relation to secondary schools states:
"In almost all schools, climate and relationships are constructive and encouraging. While many schools have small numbers of young people with particularly challenging behaviour, any issues arising are usually handled effectively."
Liz Smith said that the vast majority of young pupils and students behave very well, but her motion does not say that, and that is the basis for the amendment in my name. For that reason, I ask members to support the SNP amendment.
I move amendment S3M-4067.3, to leave out from "as called" to end and insert:
"welcomes the 11% reduction in exclusions from Scottish schools from 2006-07 to 2007-08; acknowledges that appropriate support should be provided to the small number of children and young people who persistently misbehave; further acknowledges that head teachers already have considerable power over school discipline through their responsibility for school discipline policies and their devolved responsibility for excluding pupils; agrees that the future policy on behaviour in schools should be informed by the survey currently being conducted by the University of Edinburgh on behalf of the Scottish Government, which will provide in-depth information on this area, and further welcomes the comments in the HM Inspectorate of Education report, Improving Scottish Education 2005-2008, in relation to secondary schools, which states "In almost all schools, climate and relationships are constructive and encouraging. While many schools have small numbers of young people with particularly challenging behaviour, any issues arising are usually handled effectively. Most schools have clear and concerted strategies for promoting positive behaviour"."
What do parents want and expect when their child goes to school? Probably top of most families lists would be for their child to learn to read and write, but the next big anxiety is that their child will have friends and get on with their classmates. No parent wishes to hear that their child is being bullied or to feel that they are not safe in school or are not behaving in class. However, in too many schools in too many parts of Scotland, that is still the major cause of concern for parents.
Labour members are grateful to the Tories for lodging a motion on such an important subject, although we have proposed an amendment that we hope reflects more fairly some of the good work that has been done in recent years and which flags up a clearer direction of travel. We can and should expect the highest standards from our children, but discipline is not the sole preserve of the classroom teacher or headteacher. Discipline begins in the home and we need to work with all who are involved—pupils, teachers, the wider community and, most important, parents—if we are to make progress. I am afraid that it is not enough for the Government to say that it supports positive behaviour, a partnership approach or early intervention—sufficient funds must be in place, too, but unfortunately that is no longer the case.
Although our amendment would delete the part of the Conservative motion on the publication of national discipline statistics, I appreciated the gentle dig from the Tories about the SNPs hypocrisy on that issue. I, too, remember Fiona Hyslop berating her predecessor Peter Peacock when he insisted on moving to three-yearly surveys. I remember her using what I thought was the unlikely and Schwarzenegger-like phrase, "You can run, but you cant hide." Who is hiding now, Ms Hyslop?
One benefit of being in power is that it allows us to identify a great deal of variation between local authorities. The lack of robustness in the annual statistics was not helpful, as I think Liz Smith suggested. Does Ken Macintosh agree that it is important that we get accurate and consistent information, which is exactly what the current survey is doing?
It is good to hear Peter Peacocks words come back from Fiona Hyslops mouth. At least the cabinet secretary has recognised the error of her ways in moving from opposition to government.
I worry that the Tories answer to poor discipline lies in compiling league tables of indiscipline and—if I am to believe suggestions that I read in the newspapers this week—in private boarding school for the recalcitrant few. There is a whiff of the 1950s about some of the Tory policies. I wonder whether we will hear any of the Tory members say, "Bring back the cane."
Will the member give way?
Ah, yes—or the tawse.
On the subject of ancient history and rewriting the past, I was interested to read in Mr Macintoshs amendment a reference to
"the significant steps made by the previous administration"
to do several things, including
"the removal of restrictions on head teachers to exclude pupils if necessary".
Will Mr Macintosh remind us who introduced those restrictions in the first place?
To go slightly further back, I remind Murdo Fraser that the Parliament and the Labour Government took the important step of promoting inclusion in Scottish education. That has made a big difference, as it has ensured that children from all backgrounds are included. However, we also recognise that inclusion at all costs is not a supportable policy. I was pleased when Mr Peacock recognised that and changed the policy.
I am not sure whether we will agree on the amendments and motion, but we can agree on the nature of the indiscipline problem in our schools. Before I go any further, it is worth mentioning, as Liz Smith did, that most pupils in most schools are well behaved. I suspect that we also agree that the biggest problem is caused by low-level indiscipline, such as cheek and noisy behaviour, which is the most wearing on teachers and distracting for pupils.
There is good practice, too. I welcomed the list of measures from Mr Brown, most of which were Labour initiated—staged intervention, campus cops, restorative practices, buddying or mentoring schemes, to mention but a few—but I worry that the culture is such in some schools that bad behaviour is still played down; it is not ignored, but it is certainly not given the priority by school management and education authorities that it is by teachers, parents and, most of all, pupils.
We know from the work of the three-yearly survey that headteachers have a more positive view of school behaviour than their teaching staff and that parents and pupils have both the greatest levels of anxiety and the strongest desire for tougher sanctions. If schools are not open, transparent and, most of all, supportive, particularly when it comes to dealing with bullying, how can we expect in turn the support of parents in tackling such problems and behavioural issues?
May I just check, Presiding Officer—do I have five or six minutes?
You were supposed to have four minutes, but I can give you another minute.
I had noticed the anxious stares and was trying to work out what I had done wrong. Well, to sum up—[Laughter.]
We have fallen behind England, where a policy has been introduced that allows teachers to discipline pupils. There are more positive aspects, too. For example, work that is done by organisations such as Afasic Scotland, which has a display in the members lobby this week, points up the importance of early intervention. However, if policies such as that, the early years strategy and continuing professional development for teachers are not funded, and if we cannot do all the work that we need to do to promote teachers and to increase, instead of cut, their numbers and those of classroom assistants, we cannot put such policies into practice. It is not enough to mean well; we have to deliver those policies.
I move amendment S3M-4067.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"supports all appropriate measures to uphold the rights of teachers to teach and pupils to learn in a disciplined environment; notes the significant steps made by the previous administration to achieve this including the setting up of the Discipline Task Group, the removal of restrictions on head teachers to exclude pupils if necessary, the use of special units, support for teacher training, reduced class sizes and more classroom assistants, and calls on the Scottish Government to address the recent decline in teacher numbers and support staff, including behaviour support staff, and to work in partnership with key stakeholders to put in place a framework for a discipline code in every school incorporating rights and responsibilities for head teachers, teachers, parents and pupils."
I welcome todays debate. I stand here as someone who had more than a passing acquaintance, in my youth, with Lochgellys most famous product. I recall that every time I was belted in school, it was for talking too much—colleagues can make up their own minds on whether corporal punishment is successful and effective.
Discipline is a crucial issue in our schools. Although most pupils behave well, disruption takes teachers away from teaching. The consequences are substantial for those who are excluded and, most important, for their classmates.
We all know that teachers have to deal with a wider range of social and behavioural problems than ever before. Problems of indiscipline at school cannot be separated from wider social change and issues that arise from the challenges of inclusion. Those who are most likely to be excluded are children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, those with additional support needs, looked-after children and pupils who are entitled to free school meals. Those are the very pupils who benefit most from education, which is why it is right that they continue to have a right to access education. However, it is also important that we look at the curriculum and the alternatives, whether they are college-based vocational courses, or school or off-site solutions for those who fail to engage and those who cause trouble.
We should be in no doubt about the impact on those who are excluded repeatedly. Having previously been a justice spokesperson, I met young people who have been failed by their families and the system. They are the young men, in particular, who end up in Her Majestys Young Offenders Institution Polmont. They are the prisoners in our prisons who have a reading age of eight or nine, if they are lucky. Very often, they are young men and women whom a nursery teacher would have been able to point to at the age of two or three and say, "Thats the child who may be at greater risk of ending up in those circumstances." That is why early intervention and intensive literacy and numeracy work are so important—so that people understand what is being taught and continue to engage in class rather than drift away into a very different future.
Although the vast majority of teachers still say that persistent, low-level disruption takes up more of their time, the escalation of violence has led to councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council putting police link officers into local high schools. The latest figures show that 4,831 pupils were excluded for physical assault against another pupil, a further 1,000 for assault against a member of staff and a growing number of others for physical assault with a weapon of one sort or another. However, the vast majority continue to be excluded for persistent disobedience and verbal abuse.
In government, we showed our genuine commitment to addressing indiscipline and disruptive behaviour. We achieved marked improvement through our better behaviour, better learning strategy and the establishment of the discipline task force, which is still in place. We developed a range of initiatives, including staged intervention, behaviour co-ordinators, restorative practices, nurture groups and motivated schools and we funded them all.
It is heartening that the vast majority of teachers surveyed, in the Wilkin study for example, acknowledge that measures are available to promote positive discipline, and that the HMIE 2005 report, which has been mentioned already this morning, made it clear that overall progress was good.
The Scottish Government leaflet that was published last year, "Improving relationships and promoting positive behaviour in Scotlands schools", amounts to a continuation of the work begun by the former Scottish Executive. It is rather galling then that,when in opposition, Fiona Hyslop and others spent their time attacking reviews and initiatives and yet all we heard about today from Keith Brown were reviews and initiatives.
Fiona Hyslop was clear about what needed to be done in a press release in 2005:
"Increasing the number of teachers and cutting class sizes is the key to improving discipline in Scottish schools. Todays proposal to increase the number of support staff is all about better management of a bad situation. What we need to do instead is attack school indiscipline at source, and that means reducing class sizes in all of Scotlands schools."
She also said:
"Its teachers we need, and an increase in the number of teachers to give us smaller class sizes. Thats what the Minister should be looking at."
We agree, as does the EIS and the GTC.
To quote Barbra Streisand, it was "all so simple then". Is it not a pity that the SNP has so patently failed to deliver either of those crucial policies in Government? Our manifesto had clearly costed promises for 1,000 more teachers to reduce class sizes and improve discipline and a further 250 new and refurbished schools to inspire our children and our staff.
Each and every one of us knows how important headteachers are in shaping the ethos of a school. Research by Moray House school of education has highlighted the importance of the approach of senior management. It found that the attitude of senior staff and heads is the most important factor in explaining differences in exclusion rates between similar schools. In government, we devolved more powers to headteachers, but we believe that that process needs to go further to free them from enforced bureaucracy. Headteachers need to be able to address adequately the discipline issues that they face in their schools. Where possible, we need to see timeous solutions in schools. It makes sense for headteachers to make decisions about the children and circumstances that they know best.
I welcome the ministers comments about the complexity of statistics; other speakers have referred to comments by the EIS and others in that regard. Exclusion figures that were released earlier this year showed a decrease, which is to be welcomed, but it is clear that the figures do not show the full picture. Freedom of information requests submitted by the Liberal Democrats have uncovered large numbers of pupils who are removed from classes but are not classed as being excluded from the school roll. My colleague Hugh ODonnell will cover that point in more detail.
It is vital that children who have been excluded from school are engaged in positive activities that are constructive and which help them back into the education system. We believe that there should be zero tolerance of violence in our schools, because everybody deserves to learn in peace and safety.
In government and opposition, we have supported alternatives to exclusion and we believe that it must be the last resort. We want to see a concerted effort to support local authority, independent sector and voluntary sector schemes to intervene before schools have to resort to excluding pupils. Where pupils are being disruptive, it is vital that action is taken to address the negative impacts on the education of others.
I move amendment S3M-4067.2, to insert at end:
"and further believes that the Scottish Government should engage closely with pupils, staff, the voluntary sector and other partner organisations to improve formal and non-formal learning opportunities for young people to ensure that they are not excluded from education."
Todays debate is long overdue, given the importance of tackling indiscipline in Scotlands schools. To put the matter in context, it is important to stress at the outset that every child deserves the right to learn in an environment that is conducive to their realising their full potential.
There is no disagreement about indiscipline being
"one of the biggest barriers to teaching and learning in Scotland."—[Official Report, 20 January 2005; c 13733.]
That sentiment was expressed by the now Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning during First Ministers question time in 2005. Despite that, in Scotland today not only are incidents of indiscipline on the increase, they are becoming more serious and violent in nature. Ronnie Smith of the EIS summed up well the full extent of the problem when he said:
"Ask any teacher across Scotland about the most challenging part of their job, and you will receive near unanimity on the answer—the daily grind of maintaining effective discipline in the classroom."
Let us be absolutely clear: it is unacceptable that persistently disruptive pupils are allowed to remain in mainstream classes causing havoc for the well-behaved majority, hindering their ability to learn and making teachers lives a misery. What is the solution? There is no quick fix, but there is a need to send out a distinct and unambiguous message that persistent and serious incidents of disruptive behaviour, which worryingly increasingly involve a weapon, will simply not be tolerated in Scotlands schools.
That message must be backed by decisive action. In the first instance, it is crucial that the data identifying the number and type of exclusions are published. How on earth can the Scottish Government hope to begin to tackle the issue if it has no idea of the precise nature and extent of the problem?
At a time when the lack of parenting and parental co-operation with schools is sadly all too evident, it has to be acknowledged that part of the problem—and therefore the solution—lies with a minority of parents themselves. Many of those parents had a bad experience of school as pupils and now find themselves with a little bit of power that they are determined to use to undermine teachers and the discipline that schools impose. More work has to be done to address that problem and promote positive parenting.
It is worth pointing out that with the increase in single parent families the presence of community police in secondary school campuses is having a number of positive effects that I can see in the area that I represent in Lanarkshire. Community police provide a male role model, which more often than not is absent from the families of many disruptive pupils; they help to establish a relationship with pupils to deter bad behaviour in and out of school; and they detect community crime early, as evidenced in Coatbridge, where an outbreak of graffiti was quickly recognised by the campus police officer as being the handiwork of a pupil, as identified from artwork and the doodlings on his jotters.
In the time available it is not possible for me to go into more detail about the necessity to remove persistently disruptive pupils from the school environment. As my colleague Liz Smith pointed out, the setting up of second chance units is certainly worth exploring.
I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that on board. If we achieve nothing else from this debate, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government will ditch its preoccupation with reducing class sizes, which in itself will do absolutely nothing to tackle the disruptive behaviour in Scottish schools that is depriving far too many children of the opportunity to reach their full potential. The situation cannot be allowed to continue. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.
Like all speakers today, I firmly believe that we must ensure that our teachers are able to teach in a safe and secure environment. It can never be acceptable for a teacher to be faced with threats of violence or actual violence. I support the many steps taken by Peter Peacock during his time as education minister to tackle indiscipline in schools and to ensure that headteachers had the lead role in combating violence against their staff.
It is important to recognise that the majority of Scotlands pupils are well behaved. While I agree that there is a need for firm and clear behaviour policies in our schools, as well as staff training and support, we also need to concentrate on how to prevent violence in our schools. That is why I will focus the remainder of my speech on a more positive approach to pupil behaviour.
It is widely recognised that early intervention in antisocial and even criminal behaviour is the most effective way to challenge that behaviour. I will highlight an early intervention scheme that seeks not only to challenge and prevent disruptive behaviour but to improve the educational prospects of some of the most disadvantaged children.
Since 2005, North Lanarkshire Councils nurture group pilot has been running in a small number of primary schools. Two of those schools, Chapelside primary and St Serfs primary, are in my constituency in the most deprived communities in Airdrie. A number of children in the schools face complex problems, as indicated by higher than average levels of social work involvement and a relatively high percentage of looked-after children.
The aim of the nurture groups is to focus on early intervention through working with small groups of young children, usually from primary 1 to primary 3, with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Such children find certain elements of school life very difficult and exhibit a range of behaviours, including poor concentration, hyperactivity, underdeveloped fine motor skills, and speech and language problems.
The initiative is based on the theory and practice of Marjorie Boxall, a principal educational psychologist in Hackney. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting St Serfs primarys nurture service and was impressed not only by the dedication and commitment of the staff but by the relaxed atmosphere within the designated room. Such rooms usually have a living area, a kitchen area and a table for breakfast and snacks, which enable staff to work with young people on some of the most basic social skills and to provide a safe and relaxed environment in which to learn. Partnership work is also evident, with external professionals such as social workers, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists playing an important role in supporting children during their time in the group.
Headteachers have commented positively on the impact of the nurture groups, not just on individual children but on the whole school ethos. Improvements in the behaviour, attitude and social skills of some children have been evident not only in the units themselves but in the classroom, playground and canteen.
While we all want to ensure that firm action is taken against those who threaten or perpetrate violence in our schools, I am sure that we all agree that it is far better to take steps to prevent violence in the first place. Nurture groups, as demonstrated in North Lanarkshire, can play a part in effecting such a change in behaviour.
The minister made a very brief reference to nurture groups in his speech. When the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning winds up, will she state what she will do to ensure that nurture services are rolled out across Scotland? There is more to being a Government minister than saying that one agrees with something and that one welcomes good practice; one must resource and take seriously the responsibility of ones office. What will the Government do to support nurture services across Scotland?
What disturbs me most about the Conservative motion is that while it is rightly concerned with the increasing number of weapon attacks by pupils—even though it reads as if the concern is with exclusions on that account rather than with the actual assaults—it does little except wring its hands over the issue, no matter what we were told by Elizabeth Smith in her introductory speech. The only positive statements are that punishments should be appropriate, whatever that means in this context, and that headteachers should be given more power to deal with indiscipline. What power? Do the Conservatives look back with nostalgia to the good old days when teachers ruled their classes with a rod of iron?
Will the member take an intervention?
If the Presiding Officer gives me extra time.
I will not give you extra time: you have up to four and a half minutes.
Let me make some suggestions on the Conservatives behalf. Look at the example from Charles Dickenss novel "Nicholas Nickleby", in which the tyrannical headmaster of Dotheboys Hall school, Mr Wackford Squeers, used the cane liberally and with some effect. The character of Squeers was based on the real life William Shaw, headteacher at Bowes academy in County Durham. Shaw made his pupils wash in a horse trough and sleep five to a bed, and he beat them if they did not kill all the fleas in their beds every morning. He allegedly beat one pupil so hard that he occasioned his death. This harsh treatment seems to have worked as there is no record of any Bowes academy pupil attacking another person with a weapon while that regime was in place.
Those days are thankfully past—perhaps beating culprits to death is going a little far even for those who approve of hanging and flogging. However, members of the Conservative group who went to schools such as Eton or Fettes may remember, as I do, and wish to reintroduce, although I do not, the beatings with a cane that left bruises that would be of great interest to todays social workers. The rumour was that a silk handkerchief inserted under your pants mitigated the effect of such a beating, but I assure members that that was not true.
Other members of the Conservative party might look back with fond memories to that favourite tool of Scottish teachers, the famous Lochgelly tawse, which Margaret Smith loquaciously proved to be ineffective. I am sure that those members already know this, but I inform other members that they can still benefit an industry in Helen Eadies constituency by purchasing a tawse via the internet. I will happily give details to other members in private after the debate, if they wish.
We would be grateful if the member returned to the subject of the debate.
Indeed. The cost of tawses varies: it is £100 for a lightweight model, which is suitable for use in primary school to achieve the discipline that the Conservatives so wish for; or, for secondary school, one can buy the magnificent extra-heavyweight three-tailer for £250. They are only available for sale to teachers who wish to keep discipline in their schools according to the Conservative motion, as the manufacturer frowns on what it regards as the misuse of tawses in the adult entertainment market.
Can Dr McKee tell us whether he is recollecting recent suffering induced by all those items of torture or whether he is casting his mind further back? It all seems very familiar to him.
Once Dr McKee has done that, I would be grateful if he returned to the subject of the debate.
After noting the Conservative interest, I looked up tawses on the net last night, and I have the details here if members wish to benefit from them.
Attacks by pupils using weapons never seemed to occur in the days when a Lochgelly tawse was to hand. Is that the disciplinary power that the Conservatives wish to bestow on headteachers in their motion? Let us review the facts: there is a small but totally unacceptable incidence of violence by pupils against their teachers and fellow pupils. The origins of such behaviour lie in society—and the lack of community that was so encouraged by Margaret Thatcher—outside the school, which is where the problem must be tackled.
There is a place for punishment and exclusion, and the rights of teachers to teach and pupils to learn must be respected, but offending pupils also have needs. A high proportion come from fractured backgrounds, and they and we will suffer further if they are simply demonised. No child should be a lost cause; every case is different, and most schools have clear and concerted strategies for promoting positive behaviour. The SNP and Labour amendments positively reinforce those strategies, and I will support them both at decision time.
I am not sure that I can follow Ian McKees speech. I think that I would be ill advised even to attempt to do so.
Dr McKees last points were significant, although it is unfortunate that he dwelt on a false debate at the beginning of his speech, which I do not think anybody really wants to talk about. The challenge for him is to square his view with what the SNP is doing in our local communities, and to understand the wider social issues.
I should declare an interest: I am a parent of children in late primary and early secondary school; I was a behaviour support teacher who, in an education support base, and as part of a broader team, latterly worked with youngsters to hold them in mainstream education; and I am someone who seeks to represent the views of constituents, such as youngsters who are bullied or intimidated in schools or who are struggling because they have not got the appropriate support in school.
I was concerned by what appeared to be the ministers tone of complacency. Indiscipline is not just a problem now—it has always been with us—but the test for the Government is whether what it does makes the problem better or worse. I contend that, at the moment, the Government is making it worse.
I find it frustrating that when we talk about school discipline, we want to separate it off and put it in a policy box away from the broader issues. We talk about knife crime in schools, but it is disturbing that the Government is rolling back more broadly its policy on knives and the retail of knives. We cannot separate those issues.
We ought not to talk about indiscipline in schools as if it were one issue. There are issues to do with the appropriateness of the curriculum for some youngsters, and there is an issue around parents who mollycoddle their children so that the children go to school never having been told, "No." That difficulty, which is not specific to poor communities, must be challenged.
Some children who come to school are living in the most chaotic circumstances. We do not know—and neither does the Government, as it has not sought to find out—how many children are living with parents who have an addiction. Do we imagine that those children, who have to learn to be resilient within their homes, somehow come to school able to stay calm and cope with what is demanded of them? I ask the Conservatives to reflect on the fact that for those youngsters, school is sometimes the only security that they have, and the most remarkable journey that they make every day is to get themselves to school. We should be hesitant about saying that we simply expect those children to learn somewhere else. We should perhaps have to take them out of the classroom, but not necessarily out of the building.
Do we imagine that for certain young people, being on the fringes of a young male gang culture in our communities does not impact on what they do when they go to school? I am troubled by the Governments approach to antisocial behaviour. It somehow thinks that getting rid of antisocial behaviour orders for young people is a positive thing, when in fact those orders are about engagement and challenging young people about their behaviour at an early stage.
Some of what is happening in schools reflects the broader concerns. We must ensure that our schools are confident enough to deal with poor behaviour, but we must also consider the causes of such misbehaviour and address it accordingly.
In the past, when young people from poor communities misbehaved, people shrugged their shoulders, tolerated it and said, "So be it." That is unacceptable: those young people deserve to have us challenge their behaviour, and we must recognise the importance of early intervention, early parental involvement and engagement beyond the school. We need to challenge the childrens hearings system, the social work system and others to work with schools in addressing those difficult problems.
The Government must confront some of the consequences of its own actions. The council tax freeze, which is a squeeze on funding, means the end of behaviour support, so that children who should be included in mainstream education are denied the support that allows that to happen. There is a focus on bringing down class size numbers in primaries 1, 2 and 3, while our young boys are falling out of the education system in the first and second years of secondary school—and the numbers are going up as a consequence of that focus.
There is a freeze on recruitment and an increase in the use of supply teachers in our secondary schools, which makes life uncertain for young people, stops the continuity of their learning and has an impact on behaviour. The direction project in my constituency, which in the past was supported by youth crime prevention moneys, is now ending its support for five to 12-year-olds because of funding decisions by the Scottish Government, which will have consequences for the ability of those youngsters to sustain a mainstream education and will impact on the quality of learning for young people who desperately need an education.
There has been a reduction in the number of classroom assistants and in flexibility—
The member should finish now.
I will finish on a final point—there has been a reduction in breakfast clubs, which have nothing to do with eating and everything to do with supporting children in the transition from their homes to school. School and education involve tackling indiscipline, but the broader social programme of funding and resources that the Government provides for communities is critical to addressing the problem inside and outside our schools.
I had hoped that my self-denying ordinance not to speak on education-related matters would last a bit longer, but when I saw the motion it was a case of haud me back.
The debate has nothing to do with our pupils, teachers or schools, and everything to do with the Tories pandering to the readership of the Daily Mail and promoting the private education sector at the expense of the public one. The record on school exclusions in the past two years, which has built on the foundations that were laid by the previous Executive, has been one of very good progress and is likely to continue to improve. The main reason for that is the enthusiasm with which many schools have embraced the positive behaviour initiative.
Will the member take an intervention?
I could speak about the issue for 40 minutes, never mind four, so I will not take any interventions.
We can clearly see that there has been a dramatic effect in school communities that have embraced positive behaviour methods. That is happening throughout Scotland, as each education authority has an officer who is dedicated to helping schools to introduce those methods. I cannot praise enough the positive behaviour team in the Scottish Government, who travel around the country offering advice and support. It is not just public authorities that are working on the issue; I congratulate UNICEF UK and Bruce Wilkinson on introducing the rights respecting school initiative, through which children learn that they have rights but also responsibilities to ensure that those rights are respected. The majority of primary schools in Fife are adopting that initiative and are seeing real improvements in behaviour. Schools that have embraced positive behaviour, whether through the rights respecting school model, restorative practice, being cool in school or other methods, are experiencing a calmer, more positive atmosphere, which is more conducive to learning, and, crucially, teachers are reporting that they are much less stressed.
There is no denying that there is some way to go. It is much easier to introduce positive behaviour from day one of a childs school life, but the fact that it is being introduced in secondary schools shows that it can be introduced at a later stage.
If Inshes primary school in Inverness, which welcomes children with learning difficulties, can manage without any exclusions, other schools can do so, too.
We all acknowledge that there will be a very small number of disturbed children who might not respond. Prison governors tell us that as long as there are drugs in our communities, there are likely to be drugs in our prisons. In the same way, as Johann Lamont articulated thoughtfully, as long as childrens family members are carrying knives on our streets, there remains the possibility that knives will enter our schools. In such cases, the child concerned must be assessed and treated individually by a number of agencies to determine the best way to deal with their offending behaviour.
Nothing should be ruled out. Headteachers can and should use exclusion, but they must consult local authorities, so that children are not just left to roam the streets and create further mayhem during their exclusion. Removal to a different setting might work in some cases, but, often, it leads to even more resentment and frustration when the individual is removed from their family and friends, and it does not lead to long-term behavioural change. Borstal regimes in modern buildings that are provided by private companies that charge the local authority huge sums are not necessarily the panacea for all ills in this area.
We must always focus on the childs needs and welfare. I urge the Government not to be blown off course by the motion.
For our children to learn, teachers have to be able to get on with their job and they need support through resources and the school culture and from the community.
Debates around school discipline often seem to focus on problem children disrupting the studies of the well-behaved majority. There often seems to be an implicit assumption that if those problem children were separated from the rest, all would be well, and that the inclusion agenda has caused the problem. However, that analysis is too simplistic. School indiscipline is not always about problem children. Often, it is about problems at home, problems with literacy, bullying, undiagnosed health or learning problems and, sometimes, there are problems with individual teachers.
We should not be surprised that while antisocial behaviour by and against young people has become more of a concern in our communities, it has also become more of a concern in our schools. The statistics are concerning. Although we have seen an 11 per cent decrease in the number of exclusions, we have to be assured that that has happened for the right reasons. As has already been said, exclusions for carrying a knife increased by 28 per cent last year. However, thankfully, such extreme behaviour is still perpetrated by only a small minority. General, day-to-day, low-level disruption is much more common and much more corrosive.
As has been said, the previous Executive did a great deal to address the issue, including setting up the national discipline task group and other actions that are outlined in the Labour amendment. However, more is required from the Government.
Overall, we need parents to take greater responsibility. The behaviour displayed in school is a reflection of behaviour in wider society, so we have to work with families in communities throughout Scotland to reduce antisocial behaviour in schools. We have to encourage families to value education and involve them more in education in school, and in education in general, so that it is not alien or irrelevant to them.
Last year, the Minister for Children and Early Years and I visited Cupar nursery, which provides a good example of integrating childrens education with parents education in partnership with Elmwood College.
Schools have to have the resources to identify problem behaviour and its cause and to intervene to address it. Tackling illiteracy and bullying and identifying learning difficulties or health problems at the earliest opportunity is crucial. Cuts in school budgets and the numbers of teachers, classroom assistants, support staff and truancy officers will do nothing but harm in the area of school indiscipline and to Scotlands education system in general.
Schools need the correct leadership to get the culture right for children and staff—members have commented on the importance of headteachers in that—so that pupils know where the boundaries are and teachers are supported fully when those boundaries are crossed.
At the extreme end, when we are talking about exclusions leading to expulsions, we have to ensure that the alternatives to school are working properly. We have to ensure that children know the consequences of their actions while minimising the long-term damage to their education and life chances. A temporary exclusion is a punishment and, we hope, a wake-up call, but it should also be an opportunity to intervene with the child and the family. Having a child at home for a few days, excluded from school, sometimes serves the needs of the school but not the needs of the child.
To improve school discipline we must address problems as soon as they arise, and we must consider not just the poor behaviour but the reasons for it. We have to get school right for the majority of well-behaved children, but that cannot be done at the expense of cutting loose the minority for whom school is not working. We cannot write off any child at any age.
I hope that the SNP raises its game, as someone said recently. So far under the SNP Government, education has not been given the priority that it deserves. I hope that the Government makes changes fast, so that our schools, teachers and pupils get the support from the Government that they deserve.
Hugh ODonnell (Central Scotland) (LD):
I do not think that anyone doubts the importance of good discipline in our schools or questions the unacceptability of aggressive or violent behaviour or the extent to which our pupils academic studies can be disrupted by bad behaviour. As Ken Macintosh said, disruption in schools is often of a low level, but the frustration that classroom teachers feel when they face it can manifest in unacceptable ways, such as in the case to which Liz Smith referred in her opening speech.
Although the Tory motion seems reasonable, it reveals a lack of understanding of the complicated nature of school indiscipline. Johann Lamonts speech was particularly thoughtful, and she explored many of the issues.
I was disappointed to hear Maureen Watt refer to borstal, which is a term from the past. I am quite sure that the Church of Scotland, which runs the Ballikinrain residential unit, would be a little disappointed to hear its facilities described in those terms.
I was equally shocked by Dr Ian McKees wide-ranging knowledge of corporal punishment. I did not expect that from the SNP.
Notwithstanding the merits of the Tory motion, it is narrowly focused. "Remove, expel and punish children" seems to be the mantra. If we do that, we will simply consign another batch of our most disadvantaged young people to disaffection and economic and social isolation.
Does the member acknowledge that implicit in our motion is the idea that children would be removed in order to address their offending behaviour, and then returned to mainstream education?
Hugh ODonnell: Yes. Various Conservative speakers have made that point, but I would be happier if that were in the motion.
As with too many issues, there is the danger that behaviour will become generational. We will not fix the behaviour of many youngsters unless we fix the chaos in their lives. Simple exclusion on its own will not fix that.
For the most part, headteachers have the authority and responsibility to address indiscipline in their schools. Our political obsession with trying to make capital out of the numbers game in relation to exclusions and suspensions undermines that, and sometimes has a negative effect on how local authorities deal with discipline.
No matter how we calculate them, the figures that we and the Government get are nonsense, because local authorities use a variety of strategies, which means that the figures are not accurate. Some young people who have been excluded from mainstream school remain on school rolls despite being taught in other facilities, simply because of the political imperative for local authorities not to be in the headlines as having the worst-disciplined schools in the country. We need to find a way of remedying that. We must be honest and have some integrity about the figures that we ask local authorities to produce.
One of my concerns when I came into post was the variability of the figures. They can be relied on to an extent, but does Hugh ODonnell realise that there is a contradiction between saying that the surveys are inaccurate and the Conservatives call for us to produce them more regularly even if, as he says, they are not robust?
Mr ODonnell, you should be finishing.
Hugh ODonnell: I apologise to the cabinet secretary for not having a chance to respond to her point.
Early intervention is the key. Karen Whitefield referred to nurture groups, of which I am a firm supporter, but there are alternatives. Community alternatives in my region and the inclusion zone in St Maurices high school are good examples of innovative practice that need to rolled out. We do not need a narrowly focused reaction from any political party.
Margaret Smith referred to being belted for talking too much; I am afraid that I stand guilty as charged.
Johann Lamont referred to her experience of working with pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I, too, spent many years running a behaviour support base in a secondary school, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate school discipline. It is a serious issue and it is at the front of every teachers mind in a variety of ways.
Many members have referred to the vast majority of pupils in schools throughout Scotland who behave well and work hard every day of the week. We acknowledge that. As members have said, it is persistent low-level indiscipline that makes teaching difficult at times—in fact, often. However, there is also a small minority of pupils who make teaching impossible. That can happen, so it is vital that we ensure that every school has a discipline code that sets out clearly the responsibilities of pupils, teachers and parents and that gives clear guidance on the steps that should be taken to provide a safe and secure environment, as well as clarity on the exclusion process. Headteachers must be able to exclude the worst-behaved pupils, so I welcome the fact that the previous Government introduced that power.
We must also ensure that schools have a range of resources and strategies to tackle ill discipline—from minor to serious incidents—and to tackle the at times violent incidents that we have also discussed and which it is important to discuss. That requires a whole-school approach to promoting positive behaviour, but there must also be a continuum of physical provision inside and outside schools. Behaviour support bases are necessary not only in schools but off site for pupils whose presence in school is unacceptable or too disruptive. However, given the current rate of investment in schools and the Governments failure to implement its Scottish Futures Trust, that is a rather vain hope.
Many pupils require support in school. As a former teacher, I recognise the challenges of maintaining discipline, which is hugely important. That is a massive issue for pre-service training, and we must also ensure that in-service courses are run to support teachers in those challenges. However, there is evidence of cutbacks in behaviour support staff, and we know that teacher numbers have fallen by 1,000 in only one year. That is simply not good enough.
Karen Whitefield referred to important work on development of nurture units in her constituency and in Glasgow. We have a lot to learn from those.
I have concerns that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is not working as well as it should for pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Few such children have been assessed for co-ordinated support plans, although they are among the pupils who require the most intensive interagency work. That is a serious problem.
The Labour Party welcomes the opportunity to debate discipline in schools. Every Labour member supports Scottish teachers and knows that discipline is a major issue for them. We need to ensure that we have information that accurately reflects what is happening in schools, which is why we support the survey on behaviour. However, I welcome Keith Browns reassurance that that survey will be kept under review.
If the Government is serious about tackling indiscipline, it must halt and reverse the fall in the numbers of teachers and behaviour support staff and it must implement the Scottish Futures Trust to ensure that schools have a range of up-to-date physical provision for teachers who deal with difficult and challenging behaviour.
The Government is committed to promoting positive and peaceful learning environments in our schools. The starting point for learning is a positive ethos and a climate of respect and trust, based on values that are shared by all the school community, including parents. All members of staff should contribute through open, positive and supportive relationships in which children and young people feel that they are listened to, and staff should model behaviour that promotes effective learning and wellbeing within the school community.
I am pleased that members from all parties have emphasised the fact that the majority of pupils are well behaved—the pupils who are in the public gallery will recognise that message. However, a minority of pupils are not well behaved. Any violence against school staff or other pupils is absolutely unacceptable, so when children or young people are involved in offending behaviour, we need to work in partnership with other agencies, including criminal justice agencies, where necessary.
The Government is committed to working with local authorities to support schools to introduce the most effective approaches to promoting positive behaviour. We have formalised the discipline stakeholder group, which comprises the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, HMIE and all the teaching unions. It is now a permanent Scottish advisory group on behaviour in schools for national and local government, and co-chaired with COSLA. Through a sub-group of that new advisory group, we will develop and promote guidance and best practice on improving relationships and promoting positive behaviour.
We will continue to be supported by the positive behaviour team, which is funded with £500,000 to work with local authorities and others to promote positive behaviour policies. Maureen Watt identified that many of those policies are making significant progress, including work on restorative practices, solution-oriented approaches, curriculum programmes in social, emotional and behavioural skills—which Johann Lamont touched on—and nurture groups. I say to Karen Whitefield that we have organised and run three national training events on nurture groups and that HMIE is currently evaluating that approach, which will help in the sharing of best practice.
Tackling poor behaviour is not only about punishment. Restorative practices, for example, are about working with peers, staff and other agencies to make children and young people face up to their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions. We will also continue to fund the pupil inclusion network Scotland—which networks voluntary and independent agencies that work with disengaged youngsters—so that policies and good practice can be shared across provision for children and young people wherever they are educated.
I look forward to the findings of our national evaluation of campus-based police officers in schools. It is under way, is due to report in the autumn this year and will inform local decision making.
Does the minister share my concern about campus police officers being withdrawn in my constituency?
The evaluation of the role of campus police officers that will report in the autumn might be helpful in progressing the positive actions that are being taken throughout the country and might inform the situation to which Johann Lamont refers.
I also look forward to seeing what the survey on behaviour in Scottish schools later this year tells us about low-level indiscipline and more serious indiscipline and violence, as well as the wide range of approaches that schools and local authorities employ and the training and support that staff receive.
We are developing guidance on school exclusions—Hugh ODonnell will be particularly interested in this point—which will be published for consultation this year. It will provide an opportunity to address how we work with children and young people who persistently misbehave in class. Staged interventions of joint assessment and planning for children with behavioural needs are well embedded, but we need to develop and innovate continually to ensure that all children and young people are included in, and engaged with, the new curriculum.
Local authorities can and do devolve powers to headteachers to exclude. In practice, temporary exclusions, which account for 99 per cent of all exclusions, are devolved to headteachers. Where a headteacher wants to remove a pupil from the register, local authorities retain that power in practice because they are responsible for the continuing education of the child or young person.
I congratulate schools and local authorities on their concerted efforts to reduce exclusions significantly—not as a target-driven process, as it was in the first half of the devolution decade—through early intervention and preventive work. Schools are developing strong behaviour policy codes for pupils and staff. I do not underestimate the drip-drip effect of low-level indiscipline or the problem of more serious negative behaviour. I value the input of the Scottish advisory group on behaviour in schools and I look forward to working with it as the research findings come through.
Ken Cunningham, general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, stated in The Herald on Tuesday 27 January 2009 that
"the government, schools and the teaching unions have worked together to come up with a range of strategies to reduce exclusions and that has shifted the focus towards doing the best for all young people—those who are disruptive and those whose education is being disrupted. That has led to the introduction of a range of behavioural strategies dealing with the underlying problems being faced by a disruptive child—and we have also looked at making the curriculum more interesting and more flexible to give pupils a wider range of options, such as going to college. Taken together, these strategies have had an impact on the number of exclusions as these new figures show."
I agree with that sentiment and I support the SNP amendment.
This has been a useful debate, which Elizabeth Smith ably kicked off. Members will probably agree that the most memorable speech was from Dr Ian McKee. In an entertaining but utterly irrelevant speech, he demonstrated a decidedly unhealthy interest in the details of corporal punishment. I am surely not the only member who is concerned that Dr McKee spends his evenings surfing the web checking the prices of various instruments of punishment.
For the benefit of Dr McKee, I should say that most Conservative members of the Scottish Parliament went, as I did, to comprehensive schools. We have no old Fettesians on the Conservative seats. Some might say that it is a sad reflection on the modern Conservative party that we are down to our last old Etonian.
Maureen Watt displayed the sunny disposition that was the hallmark of her tenure as Minister for Schools and Skills. She seems to think that all in the garden is rosy, citing the 11 per cent fall in exclusions last year as a sign of good progress. However, that is not the full picture. Indeed, as Elizabeth Smith said at the start of the debate, when that statistic was published, it generated a robust response from the teaching unions, including the SSTA. Jim Docherty, acting general secretary of the SSTA, said that the released figures bore no relation to the real situation in Scotlands schools. Other statistics are equally concerning. The number of exclusions for physical assault with a weapon went up from 286 in 2006-07 to 366 in 2007-08, and the number of exclusions due to drinking alcohol increased from 332 to 383 in the same period.
Which of the statistics does Murdo Fraser believe?
Unlike the cabinet secretary, I believe what those at the coalface—the teachers and parents of the pupils—tell us. They are the ones who express real concern.
On statistics, it is a remarkable conversion for the cabinet secretary to take a completely different stance today from her stance in opposition. In January 2005, during First Ministers question time, Fiona Hyslop asked the then First Minister, Jack McConnell why the Executive had moved from producing an annual survey of discipline to producing one every three or four years. Mrs Hyslop, with righteous indignation, raged at the First Minister, asking what he had to hide by not publishing the statistics annually. Well—the transition from opposition to government has changed Mrs Hyslops mind on that issue, as it has on so many others. I do not know whether the civil servants have got to her.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a second.
The fact is that Mrs Hyslop is not prepared now to publish the statistical information annually.
I was interested to hear what Mrs Hyslop said about the survey that is being done because we—of course—want accurate information. However, why did she not know that three years ago when she was in opposition? Surely an Opposition spokesman worth his or her salt would have known the facts before attacking the other party.
As my colleague Ken Macintosh said, we welcome Fiona Hyslops conversion. Is it not the case that, as far as the Conservative party is concerned, there have been somewhat large changes in tack and approach by Mr David Cameron? Is there anything wrong with that?
Mr Cameron does many things excellently, of course.
All we are calling for in this instance is consistency between what parties do in opposition and what they do in government. On that note, I say to Mrs Brankin that the Labour Party has gone in the opposite direction and is doing exactly the same trick. As I pointed out to Mr Macintosh in an earlier intervention, the Labour amendment refers to
"the removal of restrictions on headteachers",
and conveniently forgets to mention that the Labour Party introduced those restrictions, although Mr Macintosh had the good grace to acknowledge that when I intervened.
Let me reiterate a point that Elizabeth Smith made in her opening remarks. The great majority of pupils in Scottish schools behave well and only a small minority cause problems, but they cause disproportionate concern. The reality is that pupils like discipline. They want to have boundaries and to go to school in an environment in which they can get on and learn, and in which the classroom is not disrupted by fellow pupils acting in irresponsible and possibly dangerous ways.
Moreover, our teachers want to be able to get on and teach in classrooms in which they are not threatened by verbal abuse or, which is worse, by physical abuse or, which is worse still, by physical abuse with a weapon. Those problems are happening, but we simply do not do enough to tackle them. We have in our motion one suggestion as to how we should set about dealing with that problem.
We do not believe that it is right that a headteachers decision to exclude a pupil should be second-guessed by the education authority. Indiscipline is dealt with far more effectively if the final decision is left to the headteacher. It should be the headteacher, in consultation with staff, parents and pupils, who is responsible for drawing up discipline polices and ensuring that they are enforced. If we are to trust headteachers to do that and to take a lead, we must be prepared to trust them to take the final decisions. That means that a headteachers excluding a pupil should be the end of the matter. We should not see the headteacher undermined by education authority officials seeking to overturn that ruling.
We concur with the Liberal Democrat amendment; members made fair points about the voluntary sector and its good work. I have seen the work that Fairbridge does in helping youngsters who are excluded from school, and such work is very welcome. In that regard, I thought that Karen Whitefield made excellent remarks about nurture groups—I have seen a nurture group in operation—which fulfil a vital role. We require a menu of options and a range of solutions in this area, not just one. However, we must do more than we currently do.
Fundamentally, it is at school level that we will deal with the indiscipline problem, not with more top-down policies from the Scottish Government or, indeed, local authorities. If we set our headteachers free to run their schools, we will soon see a safer environment for the benefit of all our pupils and teachers. I am pleased to support the motion in Elizabeth Smiths name.
I will allow a few seconds for members to change places. Be quick, please.