Category Archives: discipline

Teaching; a well behaved profession

Posted on by
Reply

A recent post on LinkedIn asked about whether a ban from teaching, with the possibility of a request for reinstatement after a set period of time was appropriate as a punishment for a drink driving offence by a teacher? This set me thinking about the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) that oversees the handling of conduct cases against those working as teachers. The Agency also handles requests for Qualified Teacher Status. Their latest report and accounts can be found at:  Teaching Regulation Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25

Drink driving cases involving teachers that come before the TRA are relatively rare. There have been around 12 hearings between January and August 2025 where this was the main issue in relation to misconduct by a teacher. Interestingly, while, overall, cases against male teachers significantly outnumber those heard against female teachers, in drink driving cases there were only three hearings against male teacher compared with nine against female teachers. In three cases no order was made, the finding of the case proved and the associated publicity were deemed enough of a sanction. In the other cases, the teacher could seek to have prohibition notice set aside after a period of between two to five years. If successful they would then be returned to the register of qualified teachers.  

The TRA annual report for 2024-25 notes that there were only four prohibition set-aside hearings during the year for any imposition of a prohibition notice, of which two were successful. So, it seems unlikely that any of these teachers will return to the profession, at least in a regulated setting. As I have noted before, ‘Teacher’ is not officially a reserved occupation terms so, rather like estate agent, anyone can use the term. I would have liked to see the present Bill before parliament provide the status of a reserved occupation to the term ’teacher’, so that only those with QTS or in training could use the title.

The most common reason for prohibition so far in 2025 is misconduct of a sexual nature. This ranges from criminal convictions for anything from rape to the taking of inappropriate photographs. More than 80 male teachers, but fewer than ten female teachers, have had cases of this type of misconduct heard so far in 2025. Most resulted in prohibition orders, with no opportunity for a set-aside request. However, a few cases did allow for requests for reinstatement after a set period. These included the two teachers that had, presumably consensual, sex on school premises.

There were relatively few cases concerning teachers or school leaders interfering with examination or SATs outcomes. Of seven such cases, five resulted on ‘No Order’ and the others a prohibition with permission to request a set-aside after two years. It might seem that the profession has got the message about the need for letting children’s work speak for itself.

Most cases of ‘improper conduct’ that are not sexual in nature have resulted in prohibition with a request for set-aside after two to three years; exceptionally it may be a five-year period that was imposed. These can include single instances of primary school teachers slapping a pupil once, although such instances are mercifully rare, and often reveal the frustration that can face any teacher at any time when in a challenging disciplinary situation.

Teacher conduct is highly regulated, and there is now a considerable body of ‘case law’, so it is not surprising that many hearing are heard ‘in absentia’ as the individual may well have been reconciled to the end of their career in teaching.

The TRA Annual Report listed 297 hearings in 2024-25, with 191 prohibition notices resulting from the hearings. For a profession of well over half a million, this is a credit to the responsible behaviour of almost everyone working as a teacher.   

Is discipline worse in schools?

Posted on by
2

It was interesting to hear Laura McInerney and Tom Bennett on the ‘Today’ programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning discussing whether or not behaviour was worse in schools these days than in the past. Both are experienced commentators, and Tom led a review in 2017 for the then government, about behaviour in schools. It is also interesting to see the BBC taking an interest in schools. The World at One last Sunday (also BBC Radio 4) devoted the whole of the programme to an analysis of the SEND issue. Interestingly, there was no government spokesperson available on Sunday, so they had to make do with the chair of the Education Select Committee.

The discussion this morning was around whether or not behaviour had worsened in schools, and if so, why? The usual suspects, covid and mobile phones were trotted out in support of discipline being worse in schools, along with families facing multiple challenges, but there were precious few facts.

One way of measuring the state of discipline in schools is by looking at the number of permanent exclusions each year by schools.  The largest single reason each year for these exclusions is always ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’. So, this might be seen as a good proxy measure for how schools are faring in relation to discipline in the classrooms. Of course, this measure doesn’t pick up low level disruptive behaviour, but it is reasonable to assume that there is a correlation between the different levels of behaviour in schools.

Looking back over the past 30 years, the level of recorded permanent exclusions was 10,440 in 1998/99. The level fell to 5,040 in 2010/11. In the latest year, 2023/24 there were 10,885 permanent exclusions. On the face of it, discipline is getting worse again, but is only back to levels last seen at the end of the last century.

I would like to suggest to causes not mentioned on the ‘Today’ programme: teacher supply and school funding. Is there a causal relationship between the fact that permanent exclusions were at their lowest when schools were fully staffed, and had experienced a period of several years of significant funding by government.  By contract, permanent exclusions seem to rise when there is difficulty staffing schools, and when funding is less than might be expected in a civilised society.

So, is the answer as simple as proper funding and staffing if you want fewer exclusions? The age and experience of the teaching force might also play a part. More experienced teachers, as I can testify from personal experience, are much less likely to face discipline issues then new entrants, especially if they are unqualified.

In the latest statistics on exclusions, 13 of the 25 local authorities with the lowest rates of permanent exclusions were London boroughs. This just adds more evidence to my thesis that if the rest of the country were funded like London, schooling would be in a much better place across the country.  Although I was also pleased to see Oxfordshire in 10th place overall for the lowest rate of permanent exclusions.

Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils?

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE published the annual data for exclusions and suspensions from schools during the 2023/24 school-year this week. Suspensions and permanent exclusions in England: 2023 to 2024 – GOV.UK Sadly, there are more pupils being excluded than in recent years, and my post from July 2018 Bad news on exclusions | John Howson reflects much , at least at the national level, of what is contained in the latest report on 2023/24. Boys on free school meals, and with SEND, and from a minority group are at highest risk of being excluded, especially when they are in Year 9, and, as ever, the reasons is most likely to have been ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’.

With the worsening recruitment crisis in schools, allied to a challenging financial environment, an increase in exclusions and suspensions was to be expected. What the data doesn’t tell us is whether schools with high exclusion rates are linked to specific academy trusts, and also to high levels of teacher turnover.

I wrote a blog about policies for reducing exclusions in May Reducing exclusions from schools | John Howson and I would hope that if the staffing situation does settle down, so might the number of pupils being banished from school.

As ever, I am struck by the funding issue. London, the best funded part of England has some of the lowest rates for exclusion and suspensions. There are 17 London boroughs in the list of the 25 local authorities with the lowest rate of suspensions in 2023/24, and 19 in the similar list for secondary exclusions. In the list of ten local authorities with the highest rates of exclusion are five authorities in the North East. I think that there may be something in this data that needs further exploration, especially as I would expect teacher recruitment to be easier in the North East than in London.

Interestingly, in view of the debate about mobile phones in schools, the number of suspensions for ‘inappropriate use of social media or online technology’ only increased from 11,419 to 11,614, an insignificant change between 2022/23 and 2023/24 especially compared with the increase in exclusions for ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ from 446,676 to 569,921 over the same period. Of course, much comes down t how a decision on which box to tick when the exclusion is being reported and the latter category may hide suspensions that actually belong in one of the other categories. This is the risk when there are too many choices for a school to make.

The increase of around 25,000 in assaults leading to suspensions must be very worrying, although I wonder whether most are ‘common assault’ rather than ‘assault leading to actually bodily harm’ or ’GBH’ to use the criminal code levels of violence against another.

Some numbers are so small it is a wonder that they are still collected. Were only 69 pupils – up from 50 the previous year- permanently excluded for theft. Perhaps schools have nothing worth nicking these days.

I hope that next year, we might read of at least a levelling out of the rates of exclusions and suspensions and perhaps a return to a downward trend, especially if there is a relationship between funding and how schools can cope with disruptive pupils.  

Are teachers losing control of classrooms?

Posted on by
Reply

A recurrent theme running through the recent DfE’s ‘Working lives of teachers and leaders: wave 3 Summary report November 2024’ Working lives of teachers and leaders: wave 3 – GOV.UK is that teachers seem less happy about pupil behaviour than in the previous reports.

In this report, 44% of leavers from teaching cited pupil behaviour as a reason, up from 32% in the previous study and a statically significant change compared to the 2024 study. Not yet at the level of ‘high workload’, cited by 84% this year, up from 80% last year and the top reason in both years.

Nor is it yet at the 47% level of those citing government initiatives/policy changes, although it is worth noting that eight per cent fewer leavers cited this reason this year compared with last year.

Other pressures and stress are still also at the top of leavers reasons for quitting, but dissatisfaction with pay, never near the top of the list of reasons fell by five per centage points to 34%. No doubt both the government and the professional associations will be looking closely at that figure as will be those advising the School Teachers Review Body. Conditions of service seem more of a concern than pay at this point in time.

The point about pupil behaviour is reinforced in the table showing the views about discipline deteriorating among both teachers and school leaders completing the survey. In the 2022 survey 18% of teachers and 5% of leaders said that pupil behaviour was either ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.  By the 2024 survey the reporting levels were 27% and 8%,

It would be interesting to know more about his change. Is it across all teachers and leaders; worse in the secondary sector than primary schools and what, if any, role has increased absence rates played in deteriorating views of pupil behaviour?

Perhaps more worrying was the findings that although

“around eight-in-ten (79%) leaders with teaching responsibilities reported that they felt always or mostly supported to deal with disruptive behaviour (consistent with the 80% in 2023 but lower than the 85% in 2022).”

But those bearing the brunt of classroom teaching, teachers with teaching responsibilities were less positive,

 “with 49% reporting feeling always or mostly supported with dealing with disruptive behaviour (lower than the 52% in 2023 and 58% in 2022).”

Not surprisingly, there have been declines in those teachers and school leaders viewing classroom behaviour as very good over the same period.

Is this change a consequence of the deteriorating staffing situation in secondary schools in recent year, or is it a reflection of the debate about mobile phone use in the classroom? It would be interesting to know more about the types of school and ages of the teachers reporting the deterioration in pupil behaviour to see how widespread the decline is among teachers.

At these levels this is certainly a flashing amber light, but not yet a full-blown crisis, but all concerned will need to understand the reasons why classroom behaviour is deteriorating.

Defence Review sets growth target for Cadet Forces

Posted on by
3

The Defence Review published yesterday, and it was interesting to see that it has implications for education. Specifically, the Review includes some recommendations directly aimed at education and young people. The first of these is:

Work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools.

I assume that will mean allowing recruiting teams into schools to offer career advice, and also, where an understanding of the role of the armed forces and home defence might fit into PSHE lessons.

More specifically, and with a cost attached to it, is the recommendation that:

Expand in-school and community-based Cadet Forces across the country by 30% by 2030, with an ambition to reach 250,000 in the longer term. There should be greater focus within the Cadets on developing STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) skills and exploring modern technology. Defence, wider Government, and partnerships with the private sector must provide appropriate leadership, support, and funding to deliver this expansion.

To reach this goal around 7% of the secondary school population need to be enrolled in cadet forces, or perhaps 10%, if you discount the youngest pupils in Years 7 and 8. If this happens then there is going to be a need for a whole lot of new staff in areas where the schools have been failing to meet recruitment targets for teaching staff for years.

What is the purpose behind this move. What will these young people be expected to do with the skills acquired after leaving school? Last year, at the start of the general election campaign there was a brief discussion about reintroducing conscription. As there is no mention of conscription in the review, might this be the alternative solution.  Although the voluntary scheme is much cheaper and less intrusive than conscription, it begs the question of who will sign up for the new places?

The last sentence in the recommendation suggests a new body might need to be set up to deliver the aims, especially if all the groups mentioned are to be brought together. Would such a new body be led by the MoD, and how will the new community groups recruit the staff for evening and weekend sessions when these days volunteer organisations are regularly struggling to find youth workers? Will local authorities be asked to help play a role in developing this expansion of uniform bodies.

As might be expected, there is a big emphasis in the Review on both the uses of and the protection from drones – the new weapon of war. The war in Ukraine has probably played a role similar to that of the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s in demonstrating how the technology of war can change in one theatre, delivery of the destruction of civilian population centres and other targets, while remaining the same on the ground: opposing armies slogging it out on front lines that resemble the trench system of World War 1.

I was part of the first generation to avoid conscription, and benefitting from that reduction in defence spending being used for improvements in the education sector from the 1960s onwards. It is sobering to remember that in the late 1940s there were something like 1,000,000 British forces personnel in Germany waiting for a war that thankfully never came. But, most of them were conscripts.

I fear now that defence of the realm will consume a much larger part of national resources, and that education as a sector may suffer as a consequence.  

Home Guard or Civil Defence Force?

Posted on by
Reply

A new home guard will be established to protect key British infrastructure from attacks by hostile states and terrorists , under plans reportedly put forward in a major defence review. The Independent Sunday 18 May 2025

Less than a year after the issue of whether or not conscription was under consideration by a Conservative government surfaced during the early days of the 2024 general election, we now have a Labour Prime Minister presiding over a defence review that apparently wants to revive a part-time volunteer army. Whatever happened to The Territorials and their companion volunteer reserve forces in the other armed services?

We will have to await the full Defence Review to understand what is in the minds of those charged with the defence of the ream in the 21st century. At a time when there are more teachers in training than the whole establishment of the Royal Navy, (a factoid that never ceases to amaze me), something clearly has to be done about staffing our defence forces.

With the armed services no doubt open to pressure to reduce their numbers of Commonwealth recruits, a group that don’t often receive a mention in the debate about immigration, a review is obviously necessary if we need more people in our defence forces. Incidentally, I saw a post on LinkedIn recently that suggested there were days when the recruiting offices across the whole of Scotland only managed to recruit one person a day into all arms of the forces.

Will the Review consider the issue of cadet forces for young people. The remnants of these units are now rather haphazardly spread across the country, although the private schools have still, at least in the boys’ school sector, managed to retain many of their Combined Cadet Forces.

The CCF also used to be a feature in the State secondary school sector, at least in selective schools, but largely disappeared in the early 1960s, around the time that conscription was abolished. I recall that the school I attended has such a Force in 1958, when I joined the school, but by the time I reached the possible age to join, it had been disbanded.

Will an expansion of such forces be part of the proposals, or will the needs be just for adult volunteers. And what about the Royal Observer Corps – will that again feature as a part of the volunteer defence force?

Personally, I think a civil defence force that has wider uses than just preparing for a war is a more attractive proposition to sell to the general public. Afterall, even if saboteurs were to play an important part in the scheme of things, we already have the Civil Nuclear Police force to guard our high-risk power stations – and, incidentally, they are the only police force where all officers are trained and can carry firearms on a regular basis.

A civil defence force could help in times of national emergencies, such as floods, fires and other times of high risk – where increasingly firefighters are already a mixture of full-time professional and part-time retained officers, such as those that tragically lost their lives last week at the Bicester Motion conflagration –.

You only have to think of the fire bombs of the animal extremists that were inserted into clothing in shops to know how recruiting soldiers to stamp around outside possible targets is little more than gesture defending.

I will wait with interest, to see what actually the government will be proposing.  


Reducing exclusions from schools

Posted on by
1

Reading the Youth Justice Board Bulletin this week alerted me to a new publication about a piece of research into exclusions by schools led by the University of Oxford. Equity-by-Design_Excluded-Lives.pdf  The report contains the following in its conclusion

‘Addressing inequality in education requires a radical rethink that shifts the focus from accountability on school academic performance to accountability for the inclusion and wellbeing of the child in balance with achievement and attainment. We believe that ‘Equity by Design: Our Children, Our Responsibility’ contributes to this essential process’. (page 8)

The report also notes that ‘The challenge for schools in England and the current Labour government in its policy development is how to address issues of equity and inclusion in schools in a period of multiple pressures on school leaders and staff, their pupils, and available resources. These pressures are reflected in high and rising levels of exclusion that disproportionately affect vulnerable and marginalised children and their communities.’

All worthy stuff, but the lack of a focus on staffing in schools, especially in view of the interactions with adults being the most common reasons for an exclusion was a bit of a surprise to me.

‘Training from Initial Teacher Education/Initial Teacher Training to the National Professional Qualification for Headship should address inclusive and relational practice and its implications for teaching and learning, behaviour policies, and pastoral care, as relevant to the context, role, and stage of professional development of staff.’

I found their conclusions on staffing wordier that useful. I hope they meant that all staff need to be trained to be aware of circumstances that might escalate into an exclusion, and that training should be tailored to the circumstances of the school. It is important for schools to identify what percentage of exclusions result from interactions with non-teaching staff that don’t seem to rate a mention in the report.

Still, the support in the report for a collaborative approach that involved local authorities did cheer me up.

‘Local area collaborative infrastructure models.

In order to tackle what we identified as the somewhat fragmented middle tier, policy development should encourage and enable trusts, schools, AP, FE, LAs, Local Inclusion Boards, and Family Hubs to form local partnership ‘Inclusion Groups’ based on collaborative working and the sharing of learning with joint accountability for decisions.

The remit of these ‘Inclusion Groups’ would be to collaboratively identify local needs and to reconfigure where responsibilities should lie to address and meet these needs. By doing so they will be able to determine provision for individuals and decide on the overall approach and its implementation.

These Inclusion Groups should enable LAs to support and challenge schools/trusts as well as empower headteachers and other partners to request action. They should also develop family hubs and other co-location models and work with local communities and third sector partners. Their work should Reviews’ and they should report back to partners annually. Additionally, the role of education should be strengthened in local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and partnerships.’

However, I am worried about the funding for such inclusion groups and who is to take responsibility for them in the fractured world of education that exists at the present time.

With exclusions at around their highest levels for two decades, there is clearly an issue to be tackled. Personally, I think the curriculum is the best place to start. Reviewing the Key Stage 4 offering so that it provides a relevant for all pupils and not just for those aiming to stay on at school into Key Stage 5 would be a good place to begin any changes. However, we may not have the teachers to offer any radically different curriculum at the present time.