The children who drive teachers out

Teachers are tearing their hair out trying to deal with difficult, aggressive and disruptive pupils, yet the Government, concerned by the relentless rise in exclusions, is pushing for, and getting, a significant number of reductions in the exclusion of difficult pupils.

Teachers are tearing their hair out trying to deal with difficult, aggressive and disruptive pupils, yet the Government, concerned by the relentless rise in exclusions, is pushing for, and getting, a significant number of reductions in the exclusion of difficult pupils.

That does not mean that fewer children are being disruptive, just that more of them are staying in the schools. According to a survey commissioned by Teacherline, the telephone counselling service, 85,000 teachers experienced aggression from pupils and 58,000 from parents in the last two years.

Sue Furness, the coordinator of Teacherline, says: "Teaching disruptive pupils is demoralising and upsetting. It's personally upsetting for teachers, because they find it very hard to say they can't cope. Teachers are so pressured today; peer support from colleagues is eroding as no one has time to get to know each other, and it's becoming an isolated job."

The Government's position is that difficult pupils should be included in the mainstream whenever possible. The current target is to reduce the number of exclusions by a third within two years - and, as schools have to make the number of exclusions public alongside their examination results, there is pressure to make exclusion a very last resort. Permanent exclusions were down 400 to 12,300 in 1997-98.

But, says the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), that pressure comes at a price. "Any child whose behaviour is seriously disruptive to the class or the running of the school, should be a candidate for exclusion," says general secretary Nigel de Gruchy.

The union is sceptical, too, of in-school sin bins, the 1,000 "learning support units" to be set up by 2002, for fixed-period exclusions.

"The in-school units may have a preventative role for the less serious cases, but we take issue with the Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett, for his position that the situation can always be dealt with on school premises. Just to shove someone down the corridor doesn't solve the problem," says Nigel de Gruchy.

"The argument is that if pupils are excluded from school, they're down at the shops, stealing, and making a nuisance of themselves. But teachers are concerned with teaching, and that's what they want to get on with. Schools can't be expected to resolve the wider social issues. Seriously disruptive and violent children should be in properly staffed, properly equipped pupil referral units, away from the school."

On Tuesday, the leader of the Opposition, William Hague, argued for the same thing as he leapt surefootedly onto the education bandwagon, claiming that ministers were undermining discipline by setting a target to cut the number of exclusions.

Mr Hague called for the abolition of the targets for cutting exclusions and for the rights of the many who wanted an education to be put ahead of the disruptive few.

The NASUWT is prepared to take industrial action to support teachers who refuse to teach disruptive pupils. The union's attitude is bullish. "It's remarkable how many head teachers decide they can exclude after all, when faced with the threat of industrial action," says Nigel de Gruchy.

"The two things that irritate teachers beyond measure, and cause them to leave, are the deluge of diktats from government, and the increase in violent and disruptive pupils."

Russell Clarke is the deputy general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, whose members decide which pupils should be excluded. "In practice, we're finding the statutory guidance is rather bureaucratic and prescriptive, and doesn't give enough weight to the head teacher's own judgment of the situation."

The appeals panel, which can overturn the school's decision to exclude, is made up of outsiders - and this, in itself, is a matter of concern to the association. "How well does the panel really know the needs of the school?" asks Russell Clarke.

He says the idea that head teachers somehow relish exclusion is totally wrong. "Heads know that losing a child in this way is very serious, but at times it's the only way to take the heat out of a situation."

The Secondary Heads Association is concerned that the educational and pastoral issues raised by exclusion are changed into "a quasi-legal activity of guilt and innocence, instead of a means of helping the youngster concerned, and the rest of the school".

Yet there is a view that reducing exclusions should be done - and can be done - with the right support structures in place, and with effective planning. Bill MacPherson and Liz Smith are co-authors of Managing Successful Inclusion (book and CD-Rom, Senter, details 0800 616692).

Bill MacPherson sympathises with teachers. "These children are the most demanding, and they are the most difficult to help. Their behaviour doesn't endear them to their teachers, and they tend to sabotage the help and support on offer to them."

But the authors advocate careful observation and assessment of the individual child, flexibility in the curriculum, and a multi-disciplinary approach, involving professionals inside and outside the school. Says Liz Smith, "Many children at risk of exclusion are already involved with several professionals - the psychiatrist, the educational welfare officer, the educational psychologist, the behaviour support service, social workers. Setting up planning meetings with all the relevant bodies can be essential.

"Specialist provision is always going to be necessary for a small number. The challenge is to plan effectively, so the provision is already there for them."

Professor Carl Parsons of Canterbury Christ Church University College has done research into the incidence of exclusion, and on what happens to excluded children. He welcomes the emphasis on inclusion. "Removing a child from school to give them part-time, inadequate education instead is something we know has bad effects on the child and on the community - and it's not something done in other European countries. Some excluded children here get no more than three hours home tuition a week."

He says government plans to ensure all local education authorities are obliged to give full-time education to any child excluded for more than 15 days after 2002 is "long overdue".

"Any LEA with a strong commitment to inclusion need exclude no children at all. Yes, there is a cost attached, in time, money, training, but haven't we all got a stake in how these children develop?" says Professor Parsons.

Yet at the frontline, the evidence is that as exclusion rates fall, teachers will need even more support in dealing with the stress of disruption. Teachers are taking more sick leave than other professions - six out of 10 full-timers took sick leave last year, and they were absent for longer, too - 10 days in total, compared to the national average of 7.8. This is directly attributable to stress at work, according to the NASUWT.

Teacherline suspects that, in fact, too many teachers continue working when they're ill. "They're reluctant to go off sick, as the work mounts up when they're away only to be tackled when they return," says Sue Furness. Teacherline's survey shows that half the profession says they are likely to leave in the next five years. "We see they're voting with their feet, and just leaving."

Teacherline - 08000 562 561.