Two cheers for teacher power

Disruptive children will be excluded from classes

New guidelines are being introduced today to make it easier for head-teachers to exclude permanently the most disruptive pupils. But the new rules seem to be in direct contradiction to another Government policy - which is supposed to reduce the number of excluded pupils by a third over the next two years.

The Education Minister, Jacqui Smith, made the latest announcement to the conference of the Professional Association of Teachers. The unions have been pressing for schools to have more autonomy, claiming that local authority appeals panels too often side with pupils. As a consequence, schools are being forced to accommodate unruly and even violent children.

Now the appeal panels have been told that they cannot order the reinstatement of pupils expelled for violence - actual or threatened - sexual abuse, drug-dealing or "persistent and malicious disruptive behaviour".

That definition worries some experts, who believe it will allow too much latitude to schools which ought to be trying harder to help problem children.

Hardening attitude

Helen Rimington, of the Children's Legal Centre, says the new rules certainly represent a hardening of attitudes by the Government. She complains that there are alrerady too few safeguards for children threatened with permanent expulsion, since cases are not based on proper legal principles of evidence.

The Legal Centre intends to launch an appeal on behalf of a 14-year-old boy from Essex, whose teachers threatened to strike if he was returned to the school. The High Court yesterday decided in favour of the school.

Her concerns were echoed by Professor Gus John, who believes that much more effort ought to be made to deal with pupils inside the mainstream school system, even if that means significant investment in facilities, staff and training.

Professor John, who is a member of the Government's Race Forum, says African-Caribbean children are likely to be particularly disadvantaged.

Despite these complaints, David Hart of the National Association of Head-Teachers gave the new proposals two cheers.

How does this fit in with David Blunkett's target of cutting exclusions from 12,000 to 8,000 by 2002? Professor Paul says it doesn't fit at all, and that the Government is in a muddle. David Hart agrees that the two ideas are incompatible. He thinks that the target is no longer a priority, and that in due course it will quietly be dropped.