Time for Labour to Go on the Offensive
Blog 33 We need to stop being defensive about our education policies and attack the Tory record of marketisation and authoritarianism. Two articles:- on behaviour and defending the Schools Bill
The Politics of Behaviour from a SEND point of view: Towards Inclusive and Compassionate Approaches
Dr Paty Paliokosta Associate Professor in Inclusive Education at Kingston University, argues against the authoritarian approach of Tom Bennett and others. Instead she proposes more inclusive approaches and hopes Labour will follow suit. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Kingston University.
Fostering belonging through inclusive practices
The current landscape of Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision highlights the urgent need for inclusive and compassionate behaviour approaches. Schools face the dual challenge of delivering academic excellence while supporting students' emotional and social well-being, particularly those with behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties (BESD) or social emotional and mental health needs (SEMH). However, prevailing disciplinary practices often marginalise vulnerable students, creating barriers to belonging (Ball, 2011; Martin-Denham, 2023).
The Reality of exclusions
Recent statistics from the autumn term of 2023/24 paint a concerning picture. Students receiving SEN support had one of the highest permanent exclusion rates. This trend highlights the systemic challenges faced by students with SEN, whose unmet needs often manifest as behavioural issues rather than academic underperformance. Suspensions and exclusions frequently fail to address the root causes of such behaviours, perpetuating cycles of disengagement and marginalisation (Black and Norwich, 2014; Explore Education Statistics, 2023).
The Behaviour-mental health link
The 2023 report by the Children and Young People's Mental Health Coalition (CYPMHC) highlights the strong correlation between behaviour and mental health in school-aged children. Many behavioural challenges stem from unmet emotional or mental health needs rather than deliberate misconduct. Addressing these underlying factors requires schools to move beyond punitive measures and adopt trauma-informed practices that prioritise mental well-being (CYPMHC, 2023).
Limitations of punitive measures
The overuse of punitive discipline policies, such as silent corridors and removal rooms, has been championed by figures like the behaviour tsar Tom Bennett. However, these measures disproportionately affect students with ADHD, autism, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Prolonged isolation and exclusions, sometimes exceeding 40 days annually, exacerbate academic setbacks and social withdrawal. Critics argue that such measures prioritise compliance over compassion, failing to equip students with the skills needed for meaningful reintegration (Rosenberg, 2023; Morgan, 2023).
The CYPMHC report reinforces these concerns, noting that disciplinary actions often exacerbate mental health challenges. Students subjected to such measures frequently report feelings of alienation, which can intensify anxiety, depression, and disengagement. These findings align with Dix’s (2022) assertion that addressing the root causes of misbehaviour is essential for fostering belonging and behavioural improvement.
Implementing whole-school approaches
The CYPMHC report advocates for whole-school approaches that integrate mental health into the culture of education by:
1. Equipping educators with skills to recognise and respond to mental health needs. This aligns with Hatrick-Doane et al. (2020) on the importance of relational pedagogy in addressing behaviour within broader social contexts.
2. Involving students, parents, and teachers in shaping behaviour policies. Responsible Thinking Process (RTP)(Ford, 1994) if properly used, is designed to teach educators how to teach students to develop a sense of responsibility for their own lives and to respect the lives of everyone around them. Such collaboration fosters a shared sense of responsibility and ensures policies reflect the needs of the entire school community.
3. Encouraging restorative justice as a framework to repair harm and rebuild trust rather than simply punishing misbehaviour. Case studies in the CYPMHC report illustrate that schools implementing restorative approaches have seen marked reductions in exclusions and improved relationships between students and staff (CYPMHC, 2023).
Balancing accountability and inclusion
The increasing marketisation of education, driven by league tables and accountability pressures, often undermines efforts to create inclusive environments. Policies such as academies and free schools prioritise competition and choice, often at the expense of vulnerable students (Vidovitch and Slee, 2001, quoted in Allan, 2003). At the same time, concerns have been raised about how these pressures discourage schools from admitting or retaining students with complex needs (Guardian, 2024).
Practical examples
The CYPMHC report highlights several case studies of schools that successfully integrate mental health and behaviour management. For instance, one school implemented a peer-led mentorship program that reduced bullying incidents and fostered a culture of inclusion. Another used trauma-informed strategies to support students with adverse childhood experiences, resulting in improved attendance and engagement (CYPMHC, 2023). Early adopters of RJ, such as schools in the Thames Valley region, have demonstrated its potential to reduce exclusions and build stronger school communities (Preston, 2002; Preston, 2015).
The discussion is ongoing
As Mittler (2000) aptly noted a long time ago, accountability-driven systems often fail to reflect the values of schools. To create a truly inclusive education system, we must move beyond punitive measures and embrace approaches that prioritise compassion, belonging, and equity. Only then can we ensure success for all pupils, particularly the most vulnerable through an intersectional lens.
To promote belonging, schools must balance academic goals with holistic support for students by:
• Addressing the specific needs of students with SEN to reduce exclusions and suspensions.
• Equipping educators with the skills to implement relational and restorative approaches effectively (Hatrick-Doane et al., 2002, 2020)
• Shifting from punitive models to frameworks that prioritise inclusion and collaboration (Labour Party Policy, 2024).
Labour government has signalled a potential shift in this direction, with plans to phase out funding for behaviour hubs promoting strict discipline (Guardian, 2024). Instead, the focus will be on addressing the root causes of exclusions, fostering supportive environments, and ensuring that inclusion becomes a lived reality for all children. This is yet to be seen.
References
Allan, J. (2003). Inclusion, Participation and Democracy: What is the Purpose?. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ball, S. J. (2011). Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neo-liberal Imaginary. Routledge.
Black, A., & Norwich, B. (2014). The Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools: A Study of the Students' Perspectives. Routledge.
Children and Young People's Mental Health Coalition (CYPMHC). (2023). Behaviour and Mental Health in Schools: Full Report. Retrieved from CYPMHC website.
Dix, P. (2022). When the Adults Change, Everything Changes. Independent Thinking Press.
Explore Education Statistics. (2023). Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions in England: Autumn Term 2023/24. Department for Education.
Guardian. (2024). Labour Plans Major Education Changes. Retrieved from The Guardian.
Hatrick-Doane, G., et al. (2020). Relational Approaches in Education
Martin-Denham, S. (2023). The "See Me" Project: Reducing Exclusions through Trauma-Informed Practices.
Mittler, P. (2000). Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts. David Fulton Publishers.
Morgan, S. (2023). Speech on the Impact of Exclusions in Schools.
Vidovitch, L., & Slee, R. (2001). Marketisation in Education: Impacts on Inclusion.
Preston, N. (2015). Restorative Practices, Affect Script Psychology and the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314102178_Restorative_Practices_Affect_Script_Psychology_and_the_Social_and_Emotional_Aspects_of_Learning [Accessed 19 Jan. 2025].
“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
George Orwell 1984
James Whiting, General Secretary of the SEA, says its time for Labour to stop kowtowing to academy bosses and be bold about its vision for schools in the new Bill. A version of this post appeared in ‘Schoolsweek’.
The reaction to the mild reforms to the operation of academies and Multi-Academy Trusts (MATS) in the schools’ system is astonishing. Huge swathes of public money are handed over to unelected trusts who are usually in the pockets of well-paid CEOs earning vast salaries. Last year, as well as the approximately £22 billion handed over to academies under per pupil funding, millions more was spent on specific grants to grow academies (TEG and TCAF) as well as capital projects. MATS chiefs, who before 2010 were relative unknown figures when it came to influence over education, now appear to wield considerable power not just over their own academies but also over education policy itself. They have the power to decide on the curriculum, staffing and financial matters in their chains. The Tories also made sure they were heavily represented in the wider system. Ex MATS chiefs run OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Institute of Teaching, and are heavily represented on working groups even under Labour. The Confederation of School Trusts (CST) and now the reborn New Schools Network, are both lobbying hard against the bill. The Tory party forgetting they lost the election, are calling it ‘educational vandalism’ and the academies lobby appear to have recruited Siobhain McDonagh MP to speak on their behalf within Labour.
Sir John Coles, CEO of the largest MAT, the United Learning Trust (ULT) , accuses Labour of a lack of narrative on school improvement. Perhaps there is a case for improved clarity in Bridget Phillipson’s approach though strong components are in place:-
· An emphasis on belonging, community, and inclusion as well as attainment
· A curriculum which builds on knowledge to include creativity and self-expression through the arts, as well as opportunities to achieve in more practical subjects without being deemed a failure in academic ones.
· Collaborating to ensure every learner in an area can succeed by sharing rather than hoarding practice
· A range of assessment components including examinations for qualifications
· A recognition that simply handing a struggling school over to a MAT has not worked. Some have been rebrokered several times. Instead it is proposed to intervene directly in struggling schools and academies with RISE teams.
· The resulting outcomes to be measured through improved attendance, better behaviour and fewer exclusions, happier learners, fewer struggling schools as well as improved attainment across the board.
Sarah Smith Labour MP and Opportunity Mission champion, sums up the narrative well in saying Labour’s priority is to deliver happier children. The question which has to be addressed to Sir John, Lord Harris et al is, can the DFE assume that MATS will just come on board with the new narrative without changes to their responsibilities under the law?
What Labour has not done is to robustly attack the myth that there has been some kind of education renaissance under the Tories as they like to claim. The shocking rise in absentees from school, the rising numbers choosing home schooling, more and more exclusions, the alarming decrease in reading for pleasure, the recruitment crisis in teaching, school buildings falling apart, failure to address the skills gap, failing apprenticeship programmes and the unhappiest children in Europe, all point to a broken system. Labour has not called this out. In football terms, they have allowed the opposition to come onto them, rather than playing further up the pitch and raining down shots on the opposition goal.
Academies and MATS are part of this mythical success. The hubris of most academy chiefs in asserting that the ‘freedoms’ they have been given is why the system is working well, against all the evidence to the contrary, is staggering. What they really mean by ‘freedom’ is ‘power’ to employ unqualified teachers, vary the curriculum as they see fit, pay staff as they choose, control admissions, limit access to SEND pupils, top slice funding away from the classroom and pay themselves inflated salaries. All these powers should lie with democratically elected local and national governments who raise the funds, not with unaccountable trusts and their CEOs.
Study after study has shown that academies do not perform better than local authority schools overall. Stephen Gorard, Professor of Education and Public Policy, could not be clearer. Academies are not ‘necessarily better (or worse) than local community schools. Once differences in intakes are controlled for, the type of school attended in England is not linked at all to differential attainment results.
Labour’s mistake was to ingratiate themselves with academies bosses when coming to power instead of asking probing questions about their role in the broken system. Now having been invited in, they are crying foul when their power is being marginally reduced and handed back to democratic bodies. A more rigorous dismantling of their record in the lead up to the election would have left them grateful of retaining the powers the Child Well-being and Schools Bill leaves them with. We in the Socialist Educational Association (SEA) continue to argue for all their powers to be returned to bodies democratically accountable for the effective use of public money.