Leader: Not excluding disruptive pupils a lesson doomed to failure

IT CANNOT be right that a failure to exclude the worst-behaving children from Scotland’s schools is leading to what teachers’ union leaders describe as “serious indiscipline” which leaves staff and pupils feeling “terrorised”.

Even allowing for the fact this state of affairs pertains in only a relatively small number of schools, the fact that a tiny minority of out-of-control pupils has such a disproportionate effect on the education of their schoolmates, not to mention the working conditions for teachers, is something which has to be dealt with.

The warning from the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association (SSTA) comes in the wake of recent figures which show exclusions from schools are at a five-year low, something which the Scottish Government says is a result of concerted action to address bad behaviour by supporting young people so they can remain in the classroom and continue their education.

There is, however, another possible interpretation of these statistics. It is that discipline has not improved markedly but that headteachers feel they cannot exclude disruptive pupils because of pressure from the government to keep them in school or because, when the figures are published, they reflect badly on them and their institution.

If the former is the case, there is cause for optimism about pedagogy in Scotland’s schools. However, such is the strength of teachers’ leaders argument, backed up by what is admittedly anecdotal evidence from classrooms, there is more than a suspicion that, unfortunately, the latter position is closer to the truth.

So, if a relatively small number of pupils are having a deleterious effect on their fellows and on the learning atmosphere in schools, what should be done? First, headteachers should not feel under pressure to avoid excluding the worst offenders. Parents looking at statistics may worry at exclusion levels, but if there is evidence of a willingness to improve the education of the majority of pupils at a school their concerns should be assuaged.

Second, the government and councils should put in place better facilities to deal with these youngsters. As the SSTA points out, sanctions can be graduated, ranging from restorative justice – where pupils atone for their misdemeanours by putting something back into the school – through staged intervention in the school, to sending the most disruptive to organisations such as the charity SkillForce, which is said to produce excellent results in its centres by working intensively with difficult pupils.

This balanced approach is surely common sense, which most parents and teachers would support. One thing is certain, however: as the SSTA puts it, the supposed commandment of “you shall not exclude” practised in some schools hinders the institutions where it is practiced, holds back teachers in their work and damages the education of the people who matter most, the pupils themselves.