This month, we have given school staff a new statutory power to discipline pupils for misbehaviour on and off school premises. We have widened the scope for detentions, and established a new legal defence for confiscation. Next month, we will give heads the statutory power to search pupils for weapons without consent.
In respect of representations, in 2006-07 my Department replied to 307 items of public correspondence about discipline in schools. That was a 35 per cent. reduction on the previous year.
I have to say that I have not noticed a reduction. When I go to schools—in Leicestershire, not in the inner city—I get representations from teachers who tell me, for instance, that they are sworn at by pupils under the age of 14 three times before the start of the school day. I understand that one child under the age of six is expelled for bad behaviour each week. Are we not developing an anti-learning culture in our schools, where respect for teachers and authority is diminishing? The Government have offered some good new initiatives, but they also tend to mouth platitudes. They have taken no real action to sort out classrooms disrupted by poor behaviour so that those pupils who wish to learn can get on and do so.
There speaks the authentic voice of Colonel Blimp, from the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck somewhere in Leicestershire.
Answer the point!
The hon. Gentleman is not a good example of good behaviour in public school education. I can tell him that the idea that we are all going to hell in a handcart in respect of behaviour in schools is not just an insult to teachers, head teachers and today’s youngsters; it is simply not true. There has probably been the equivalent of the hon. Gentleman in every previous Parliament who pointed to a previous generation when behaviour was perfect. For the record, Ofsted measures pupil behaviour and has done so for some years. Most pupils behave well for most of the time, and the overwhelming majority of schools are orderly places. Indeed, the proportion of education in both secondary and primary schools that is satisfactory or better has increased and not declined.
The very important point is that behaviour and discipline in school is one of parents’ major concerns. That is why we have provided the powers that were recommended to the Conservative Government by the 1988 Elton report that came out of a committee of inquiry. Nothing happened then, but the powers that we have made available are relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question, as they give teachers and head teachers the right to deal with bad behaviour outside the school gates. Those powers enjoyed all-party support and came into effect on 1 April. They will add to the existing powers that teachers have to reduce bad behaviour in our schools.
Reddish Vale technology college in my constituency has made great strides in reducing disruptive behaviour through the use of extra-curricular facilities, such as the on-site farm, to give disengaged pupils wider experience. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the new powers to discipline, the parenting contracts and the other powers that he has just mentioned are intended to complement and not detract from the efforts to tackle disruptive behaviour being made by schools such as Reddish Vale?
I agree with my hon. Friend that the powers are intended to complement schools’ work in that regard. From September, schools will be able to make parenting contracts in respect of behaviour without excluding the pupil involved. The anomaly in the current system is that parenting orders can be introduced only after pupils have behaved so badly that they have reached the stage of exclusion. The basic message is that parents have a responsibility when children behave badly. An important element of that is the fact that parents are included in the process through mechanisms such as parenting orders and an insistence that they go into schools to talk about their children’s bad behaviour. Teachers up and down the country are introducing innovative ways to ensure that their schools maintain an exemplary level of behaviour.
I congratulate the school to which my hon. Friend referred. My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools says that he has visited it and that it is an excellent example of the work going on throughout the country.
Of course it is vital to distinguish between the disruptive child and the disabled child. Given that a number of children with disabilities, including those with the hidden disability of speech, language and communication impairment, have often been inappropriately physically restrained by staff who wrongly think that they are simply being naughty, will the Secretary of State heed the pleas of TreeHouse, the National Autistic Society and the Advisory Centre for Education—not to mention parents—who want the guidance on physical restraint to be made statutory, compliance with it to be monitored and training provided to staff so that they may effectively and fairly implement it?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and we need to keep the issue under review—it is constantly raised with me by parents. Getting the balance right and ensuring that we have the right level of competence and skill to distinguish between the child with genuine behavioural problems and the child who is badly behaved is something that educationists have been trying to achieve for a long time. The hon. Gentleman’s proposal for resolving the issue is one view of how we can deal with it and I promise him that I will look into it personally and come back to him.