20 May 2006
New Education Bill


This new bill passed a preliminary reading on 15 March 2006. However it is still going through parliament. The key new powers under a heading of 'discipline' are:

Disciplinary penalties

The bill talks about 'disciplinary penalty' which would appear to be a euphemism for punishment. (Oh, doesn't power like to hide and disguise itself. We are punishing, but not even punishing. The unseen hand). Disciplinary penalties can be imposed on students for misbehaviour off the school grounds so long as this is 'resaonable' . What is 'reasonable' is not specified.


Comment: no comment really. This seems singularily unpleasant and mean. It amounts to a limited form of imprisonment. It is also turning teachers from being teachers into being sort of mini Gods. It is perhaps part of a strategy to get at the parents of the children since it will effect the families week-end. Here is a question; are children being used as pawns in a class-war, with some parents allowing their children to misbehave as an act of class rebellion and these new measures designed to effect parents being a middle-class counter attack? Is this going too far?



Comment: It is c) here that is noteworthy. This would seem to authorise teachers to use force against students for example who were talking out of turn in class, since that would be ":prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school" There is a clause which reminds us that corporal punishment was banned in the 1986 Education Act - but it seems a fairly fine line between prohibiting corporal punishment and allowing a teacher to say, drag a child forcibly out of a class-room for talking, which is what this section would appear to allow. (Indeed, you could even argue that corporal punishment would be less likely to cause serious injuries than this provision with its unspecified and generalised allowance of teacher-on-pupil violence; i.e. oragnised violence is probably safer than its replacement with disorganised violence). This would appear to be a rather cynical attempt to get round the European Court of Human Rights outlawing of corporal punishment in schools. Is it in this context that we should understand the rather curious statement at the top of the bill:

These powers allow Local Authorities to apply for parenting contracts when a student is excluded or suspended from school or does not attend regularily. The new powers allow for parenting contracts in cases when a child misbehaves and for applications to be made by schools as well as LEAs. (The exact terms relating to misbehaviour are a) causes disruption, b) presents a welfare or safety of other students or staff or c) behaves in such a way that would lead to exclusion. - which basically means misbehaves). This misbehaviour can be off the school grounds. Schools rather than Education Authorities can also enter into Parenting Contracts.

Comment: parenting contracts are the equivalent of ABCs. (Acceptable Behaviour Contracts). They are 'voluntary', but, like the proverbial ducking stool, refusal to enter into a parenting contract can be used as evidence to support an application for a parenting order, which is not voluntary.

The powers to apply for parenting orders are similarily extended. Schools can apply for parenting orders if a student behaves in a way which could lead to them being suspended or excluded.

Comment: Since all these are judgments made purely by school staff what this amounts to is parenting contracts and orders can now be made / applied for by schools when a student misbehaves (in their eyes).

Comment: one interesting aspect of parenting contracts and orders is their use of compulsory counselling. Here we see the convergence of Therapy Culture (see Frank Furedi 'Therapy Culture' Routeledge 2003) and the new regime of 'Anti-social behaviour' control.


A parent must prevent a suspended or excluded pupil being seen in a public place for the first 5 days of their exclusion during school hours. Breech is an offence punishable by a Level 3 fine. £1000.00. This offence can be dealt with by a penalty notice. (On the spot fine). This penalty notice can be given by a teacher, LEA offical or police constable.

Comment; this would appear for example to allow a school to throw out a student and then for a teacher who saw a parent with an ex-student in public during school hours to fine them on the spot! This would appear to enforce a kind of house arrest for children and parents where the child has been excluded - for the first 5 days (but see following 6) ).


The powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which allow Police Constables to 'remove' 'truants' to a place designated by the LEA are extended to cover students who have been suspended or excluded. This power is extended to Community Support Officers.

Comment; This would, amazingly, appear to mean that any child who has been excluded permanently from school could not go about his or her business - having been excluded - durring school hours without a fear that at any moment a police officer or CSO (CSO's may have as little as two weeks training by the way) could pounce on them and 'remove' them (the word clearly refers to people as objects) to say a school or LEA office. Some considerable irony here: you can be thrown out of school onto the streets and then dragged back if seen in public. This would also seem be yet another instance where despite all the rhetoric about child protection the new 'Anti-social behaviour' measures are in fact a new form of child abuse - in the 'removal', since this would allow presumably a barely trained CSO to drag a child off to an office somewhere. This appears to enforce a kind of permanent house arrest for any student who is suspended or even permanently excluded. I have double-checked the text of the bill and this really appears to be an effect of the measure. That is, having excluded a pupil from education the measure then prevents them geting an education on the street either. They are I suppose just supposed to sit in their bedrooms consumming Internet and watching TV. This would certainly appear to be a violation of their Human Rights despite Ruth kelly's bland assurance that everything is ok.

Comment; I can't help wondering here is there isn't some sense of a come-back after the measures to allow the police to 'take-home' under 16s under Dispersal Order leglislation were thown-out by the High Court. (See Briefing Papers. Click on the Child Curfews and Disperal Zones link.


One of the interesting new proposals is that governers should consult a sample of pupils about the behaviour policy of a school. [para. 75] This is on the face if it empowering. Possibly. Equally, of course, it may be about undermining students. Once the behaviour policy is passed then teachers can say to students "you are not just breaking rules but are going against your peers when you break the rules" Of course, these kinds of consultation exercises are lip-service; children are unlikely to say what they really feel; the sample is chosen anyway by the staff, and in the unlikely event that a mistake was made and a student recommended a reasonable policy the governing body is under no obligation to include it anyway.

Another interesting theme is the extension of teacher's powers - over children outside of schools, over their parents - they can make and apply for parenting contracts and orders , even issue on the spot fines. Teachers are being used as agents of state control. This says a lot about the governments real view of education. Those anarchists who critisise education as being about enforced socialisation would seem to have a point. This is very very very Orwellian.