Children, Young People and
Families Steering Group
London Challenge Primary
Strand
Report by:
Mike Scott
Date:
14 October 2005
Contact
Officer:
Mike Scott
Telephone:
020 7934 9839
Summary:
Job
title:
Emai
l:
Item
no:
7b
Policy Officer
[email protected]
This report sets out some key issues highlighted
by London local authorities for consideration by
the DfES in designing a Primary Strand for the
London Challenge Programme.
Recommendatio
That members agree that the report be taken to
ns:
ALG Leaders’ Committee and cleared by for
submission to the Minister at the subsequent
meeting of the Ministerial Advisory Group. ALG
officers will also follow up with the DfES London
Challenge Team to progress the issues outlined in
the report.
Introduction
1.
This paper sets out a range of key issues identified by the
ALG in relation to the forthcoming London Challenge primary
strand.
It is proposed that these be submitted to the Minister
for consideration within the remit of the programme.
These
proposals are informed by an ALG survey of London Chief
Education Officers (CEOs) and also the views of members of the
former ALG Education Steering Group.
2.
The ALG broadly welcomes DfES plans to have a primary strand
to the London Challenge programme.
CEOs are supportive of the
idea, provided that the strand builds on existing initiatives
and that additional resources are made available by the DfES
for any new initiatives.
3.
The ALG would wish to be involved in the design of the
primary strand.
Key issues for the primary strand
4.
Learning lessons from the secondary strand - it will be
important to evaluate the impact of the London Challenge
secondary work to inform the development of the primary strand.
5.
The need to link with existing strategies – the London
Challenge primary strand will need to be aligned with current
national strategies – building on all the pilot developments
currently in the primary strategy.
In fact, it is essential
that this is delivered through the primary strategy, not as a
separate initiative, so that CEOs can plan strategically for
its delivery as a London strand of 'Excellence & Enjoyment'.
Targeted support
6.
It will be important for the primary strand to have an
element of universal support but part of it should be targeted
at those schools and boroughs that face the greatest
challenges.
The strand will also need to focus on
underachieving groups including black Caribbean and white
working class boys, looked after children (LAC), young carers
and children with special educational needs.
Targeted work
should focus on building capacity in those challenging schools
which have a multiplicity of problems to address such as high
levels of pupil mobility and pupils with additional educational
needs.
7.
Key Stage 2 (KS2) - the primary strand should focus on KS2,
given the difficulties London schools are having in meeting KS2
targets.
The correlation between achieving Level 4 in English
at KS2 and 5 A*-C at GCSE highlights the need to focus on KS2.
8. Individual support for pupils and family support/preventive
services – the primary strand could help to identify, promote
and spread successful initiatives developed by schools, local
authorities and voluntary organisations that support
individual children and their families.
Such initiatives
would include counselling in school for children with
emotional difficulties and home school projects that work with
the family as well as the child.
Many such projects have been
developed over recent years through the Children’s Fund
programme. The London Health Commission is producing a
framework for the development of support for children’s
emotional health and well-being and it would be important to
join up with this.
Attainment, attendance and exclusion
9. Gifted and talented pupils - in mirroring the secondary
strategy, the primary strand should include ‘Gifted and
Talented’ work.
10.
Attendance – the primary strand will need to address the
issue of truancy and children missing education both in terms
of the impact on attainment and the child protection
implications of children being out of school.
11.
Exclusions – recent research commissioned by the DfES
indicates that Black Caribbean pupils are still 2.6 times more
likely to be permanently excluded than any other pupil. Those
from other minority ethnic backgrounds are excluded at only
slightly lower rates. There is also over-representation in
permanent exclusions of Travellers of Irish Heritage,
Gypsy/Roma and Mixed Heritage pupils (except Mixed White and
Asian).
Disproportionality extends to both primary and
secondary levels. Targeted action should be taken to support
local authorities in addressing this imbalance through further
work around Behaviour Improvement Programmes and supporting
pupil retention in schools.
Social Inclusion
12.
Better outcomes for looked after children – only 42% of
young Londoners leaving care at age 16 or over in 2004 had one
or more GCSE or GNVQ, as against 49% nationally and 95% in the
general population. Considerable inter- borough variation
exists in London.
In the best performing authority 79% of
care leavers achieved at least 1 GCSE or GNVQ; in the worst it
was only 16%. Given that London has the highest regional
population of LAC, this is a cause for concern for local
authorities. LAC clearly need support from primary level if
they are to achieve at GCSE. Promoting their educational
achievement needs to start much earlier.
13.
In addition, of 3,720 children in London aged under 16 who
have been looked after continuously for at least two and a
half years, only 64% have been in the same placement for at
least two years or placed for adoption (64% in 2003, 63% in
2002). This needs to improve to 80% by 2008 to meet the
Government's 2004 PSA target. Given the above situation,
targeted interventions in London's primary schools could make
a significant difference to local authorities achieving these
targets.
The ALG therefore proposes that a primary strand
design collaborative be established to pilot fresh approaches
to this issue.
14.
Admissions – currently inequality exists in LAC and other
hard to place and mobile pupils accessing school places. DfES
guidance1 on prioritising LAC, for example, only applies to the
standard admission period at the beginning of each school
year, whereas in practice LAC often need to enter school at
other times due to changes in care placements.
The
implication is that many LAC will continue to be allocated
places at less successful and popular schools. Additionally,
academies and city technology colleges make their own
admissions arrangements, over which statutory guidance holds
no sway. The duty therefore needs to be placed on schools as
well as local authorities and LAC should be prioritised in the
same way as statemented pupils.
Schools must also be
supported to provide these placements, in order to fully meet
the needs of the child.
1
The Education (Admission of Looked After Children) (England) Regulations 2005
15.
Bullying – this is an opportunity to tackle bullying in
primary schools – drawing on work undertaken by organisations
like ‘Beatbullying’ that have piloted and promoted successful
programmes that fully involve children and young people.
16.
Homophobic bullying – the ALG believes that the primary
stand is an opportunity to pilot some focussed work around the
issue of homophobic bullying.
For more information, research
findings and suggested activities see Appendix A.
17.
Bullying of LAC and young carers - public misunderstanding
about children in care and young carers themselves often leads
to peer bullying and can adversely affect professional
attitudes. This is an opportunity to pilot some focussed work
around these groups of children.
18.
Young carers – this will be an opportunity to raise the
profile of work with young carers – children who typically
have emotional and other difficulties and who often have a
poor attendance and achievement levels.
19.
Transforming relationships and building resilience – due to
the high level of violent crime in London both in the domestic
setting and in communities, evidence-based programmes and
projects that work in schools to develop individual pupils’
self-esteem, communication and negotiation skills and that
promote good relationships between pupils need to be
identified and promoted vigorously through all primary schools
in the capital.
20.
Extended schools – there is a need for specific work around
the support for, and sustainability of, extended school
activities in disadvantaged areas. In addition, extended
school services need to be available and accessible to
children with complex or additional needs. The Government has
promised that all parents of primary aged children will be
able to access affordable childcare at or through their school
from 8am-6pm all year round by 2010 (at least half of all
primaries will be providing this by 2008).
If this is going
to become a reality, then adequate resources need to be made
available to address the needs of all children, particularly
if supervised travel arrangements from one site to another are
required.
21.
Transition – the primary strand should identify and promote
good practice in helping children make the transition from
primary to secondary school.
22.
The school environment and ethos – this would be an
opportunity to motivate and encourage schools to be more
creative and innovative in the way they involve teachers,
schools staff, children and parents in all aspects of school
life including playtime, for example through initiatives like
the ‘You Can Do It’ programme and playtime mentors.
23.
Pupil participation – this would be an opportunity to spread
good practice in effective pupil participation through
activities like school councils, children’s advisory groups
and a range of projects.
Participation has been shown to be
an effective means of boosting children’s self-esteem,
confidence and skills as well as providing invaluable
information about what children want and need to help them
succeed in school.
Financial Implications
Capacity and resources must be added to what is already underway
at local authority level.
It is essential that funding of the
primary strand does not become another ‘extra’ for local
authorities and schools; limited capacity exists to deliver more
without increased funding, for example the new Intensifying
Support Programme (ISP) funding has gone into some participating
local authorities but not others.
Challenging schools require
targeted funds to enable capacity building to deal with problem
areas through strengthening the leadership team, like the
Leadership Incentive Grant (LIG) role in secondary schools.
Legal Implications
None
Equalities Implications
Any proposed London Challenge Primary Strand must take into
account the diverse needs of vulnerable, disadvantaged and
underachieving children, young people and their families from a
range of BME backgrounds as well as those with disabilities and
special needs. The needs of looked after children and other hard
to reach groups must be considered in providing an inclusive
educational experience for all.
Background papers
The Education (Admission of Looked After Children) (England)
Regulations 2005
Appendices A
The Case for Addressing Homophobic Bullying
Appendix A
The Case for Addressing Homophobic Bullying
Introduction
1.
Stand up for us, published in November 2004 by the DfES and
DoH, makes it clear that schools will have to include a policy
on tackling homophobia in anti-bullying action plans. Whilst
Ofsted will assess school’s performance in this area, this was
not due to commence until September 2005.
The onset of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) history month
earlier this year has also put the issue on the agenda, but
mainstreaming practice will surely take a considerable amount
of time to embed into local authority and school structures and
practices. The Youth Green Paper, too, provides the Government
with a wonderful opportunity to engage forcefully with the
problem of homophobic bullying and support local authorities
and schools in delivering on the agenda.
The context
2.
It is clear from research findings that homophobic bullying
has a direct impact on educational outcomes for children and
young people (CYP). Moreover, it has a long term effect upon
the mental health and social development of LGB youth. As the
research reveals, homophobic bullying is more severe in nature
than other types of bullying. Indeed, for many LGB CYP,
‘bullying’ does not adequately describe the nature of their
experiences of school. Homophobic ‘violence’ would be a more
appropriate expression. Government, LEAs and schools therefore
have an obligation to address the issue, both through robust
anti-bullying policies and the curriculum itself. Like all
young people, LGB teenagers need support and protection in
school, as well as a need for practical interventions to
support young lesbians and gay men as they come to terms with
their sexuality.
Key findings from research into the incidence
and effects illustrate the extent of the problem and its impact
– see next paragraph.
Bullying
3.
In Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth
(Rivers, I. 2000), 72% of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB)
adults reported a regular history of absenteeism at school due
to homophobic harassment. 50% who had been bullied at school
had contemplated self-harm or suicide – 40% had made at least
one attempt to self harm.
4.
In one survey (Bullying – don’t suffer in silence, DfES,
2002), 82% of secondary school teachers said they were aware of
verbal homophobic bullying and 26% were aware of physical
homophobic bullying.
5.
Research carried out in 2003 found that 51% of gay men and
30% of lesbians reported being bullied physically at school,
compared with 47% of heterosexual men and 20% of heterosexual
women. (Mental health and social wellbeing of gay men, lesbians
and bisexuals in England and Wales, Royal Free College and
University College Medical School, 2003)
6.
The Bullying of sexual minorities at school: its nature and
long-term correlates (Rivers, 2001) studied the types of
bullying experienced by 190 LGB adults, and found that:

82% of respondents had been subject to name-calling

71% had been ridiculed in front of others

60% had reported being hit or kicked

59% had rumours spread about them

58% had been teased

49% had their belongings stolen

27% had been isolated by their peers

11% had been sexually assaulted by either peers or teachers
whilst at school.
7. Research conducted in Reading by ReachOUT noted that Black and
Asian LGB young people faced a number of additional problems
on top of the bullying, including racism, homophobia from
within their own communities and conflict around their
identity.
8. A report published in January 2005 by the Anti-Bullying
Network shows that children as young as seven are victims of
homophobic bullying in Scottish schools.
Violence
9.
In the Stonewall survey Queer bashing (1996), almost half of
respondents aged under 18 had experienced violence:
 61% of young LGB people had been harassed (compared with 32% of
all respondents)
 18% of young LGB people had been to the police (compared with
31% overall)
 40% of violent attacks on under 18s had taken place in school,
and in 50% of attacks, the perpetrators were fellow students
10.
A GALOP survey (Telling it like it is – LGB youth speak out
on homophobic violence, 1998) found that over a third of 202
respondents had experienced harassment, including verbal,
physical and sexual abuse.
11.
Understanding homophobic bullying in schools: building a
safe learning environment for all pupils described one young
man who had been banned from physical education lessons
because of fears for his personal safety.
Occurrence
12.
There is considerable evidence that homophobic bullying is
widespread in schools. There is also evidence that Section 28
of the Local Government Acts 1988 (which stated that no local
authority shall “promote that acceptability of homosexuality
as a pretended family relationship”) has left a legacy that
makes it harder to tackle homophobic bullying. Indeed, a
report by the Anti-Bullying Network found that the existence
of Section 28 “has acted as a constraint on some teachers who
are concerned about the legal status of any action they might
take against homophobic bullying”.
13.
In 1997, Stonewall surveyed 307 secondary schools (Playing
it safe: responses of secondary school teachers to lesbian,
gay and bisexual pupils, bullying, HIV/AIDS education and
Section 28). The research found that:

51% of schools surveyed reported one or two incidents of
homophobic bullying as occurring in the last term.

5% of schools surveyed reported ten incidents of homophobic
bullying as occurring in the last term.
Academic achievement
14.
Evidence from research suggests that homophobic bullying has
a direct impact on educational outcomes for children and young
people.
15.
LGB pupils are more likely to leave school at 16, despite
achieving the equivalent of six GCSEs at grade C. In Social
exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth (Rivers, I.
2000), 81% of 120 LGB people held or were studying for GCSEs,
but only a third went on to higher education.
16.
In a KIDSCAPE survey (1998), 828 respondents said that the
bullying had affected their plans for further education. Many
wrote that they were afraid that the bullying would continue
if they continued their education.
17.
A study in Lancashire (Preventing Homophobic Bullying in
Calderdale Schools) found that the effects of homophobic
abuse, isolation and invisibility mean that LGB young people
have high levels of truancy, drop-out and low exams results,
as well as high levels of mental health problems, panic
attacks, eating disorders and suicide attempts.
18.
Bullying at school, when combined with homophobia in the
home environment or local neighbourhood commonly induced a
sense of hopelessness amongst the young homeless LGB people
interviewed for Hidden in Plain Sight: Homelessness amongst
Lesbian and Gay Youth. This recurrently led young LGB people
to leave home in the hope of escaping the abuse.
19.
Guidance by the NASUWT, Tackling Homophobic Bullying, states
that homophobic bullying may lead to low self-esteem, a
culture of fear, pupil indiscipline, pupil or staff
absenteeism, reduced staff productivity, staff turnover, poor
teaching performance, reduced learning outcomes, stress, loss
of health, and self-harm.
Mental health
20.
72% of LGB adults surveyed in Social exclusion, absenteeism
and sexual minority youth (Rivers, I. 2000) reported a regular
history of absenteeism at school due to homophobic harassment,
and 50% who had been bullied at school contemplated self-harm
or suicide – 40% had made at least one attempt to self harm.
21.
In The Bullying of sexual minorities at school: its nature
and long-term correlates (Rivers 2001) found that of 119 LGBT
adults who had been bullied at school:

53% had contemplated self-harm as result of being bullied.

40% had attempted suicide on at least one occasion.

30% had attempted on more than one occasion.
22.
Research published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in
2003 (Mental health and quality of life of gay men and
lesbians in England and Wales) compared the mental health of
gay people and their straight counterparts. It found that
discrimination and intolerance led to a higher rate of mental
anxiety, substance use disorders and suicidal behaviour among
gay people. Over 1000 lesbians and gay people took part in the
research and a significant proportion had experienced verbal
and physical bullying in school on account of their sexual
orientation.
Policy
23.
Stonewall’s Playing it Safe: Responses of Secondary School
Teachers to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Pupils, Bullying,
HIV/AIDS Education and Section 28 (1997), found that:

82% of secondary teachers surveyed were aware of incidents of
verbal homophobic bullying

26% were aware of incidents of physical homophobic bullying

99% of schools had general anti-bullying policies

6% of schools had anti-bullying policies that dealt with LGB
issues
24.
The study found that the most often cited factors that
hinder the efforts of teachers and schools in addressing
issues of homophobia were:

Worries about parental disapproval (22%)

Lack of experienced staff (15%)

Lack of policies (14%)
25.
82% of the 300 teachers surveyed identified Section 28 as a
major stumbling block to the provision of advice and
counselling to LGB pupils. In a survey conducted in the
Greater Reading area, only one school had provided training
for its governors and staff around issues of sexuality, eight
had not (Social inclusion: reaching out to bisexual, gay and
lesbian youth, ReachOUT, 1999).
Policy / campaign initiatives to combat homophobic
bullying
26.
Sex and Relationship Education Guidance (DfEE 2000) includes
sections on meeting the needs of all pupils, “whatever their
developing sexuality” and on dealing with homophobic bullying.
27.
Safe for all: a best practice guide to prevent homophobic
bullying in secondary schools (Citizenship 21/Stonewall, 2001)
draws on successful school initiatives to combat bullying and
promotes the use of the National Healthy Schools Standards
framework in dealing with the problem.
28.
Bullying: don’t suffer in silence (DfES 2002) recommends
including homophobic bullying in the school’s anti-bullying
policy. It also suggests covering homophobic bullying in INSET
(i.e. Ealing), guaranteeing confidentiality and appropriate
advice, dealing with homophobic language and exploring issues
of diversity and difference.
29.
Stand up for us: challenging homophobia in schools (DfES/DoH
2004) is a resource aimed at helping schools to challenge
homophobia in the context of developing an inclusive, safer
and more successful school environment for all. It offers
practical advice on responding to homophobic bullying,
auditing the problem and supporting pupils and staff.
30.
Education for All (Stonewall 2005) is a campaign aimed at
ensuring that access to education in Britain is not limited by
a person’s sexual orientation and sets out ten steps towards
promoting an inclusive culture in schools. It aims to supply
educators with the tools and advice necessary to create a
positive learning environment for all and support LGB young
people and ties in with the national policy focus on raising
educational standards and inclusion.
School improvement
31.
A London Challenge push on combating homophobic bullying in
schools would help schools meet their inspection requirements
under Ofsted in promoting the five outcomes, as well as the
National Curriculum. Challenging and responding to homophobic
bullying are seen as contributing to school improvement and
local authorities require additional resourcing and support in
achieving this.
Making the case for supporting London local authorities
and schools to combat homophobic bullying
32.
Ealing illustrates the case for providing extra support to
all London authorities:

First LGBT History Month took place in Feb 05 – local
authority officers wrote to schools with websites offering
resources on the issue, including lesson plans and the like.

The borough is currently preparing INSET training on
homophobic bullying in schools.

Planning Sept 2005 conference to facilitate implementation of
DfES guidance and to mainstream delivery of anti-bullying
strategies at both primary and secondary through PSHE.
33.
No resources have been made available for these initiatives
by Government. Schools are currently obliged to meet the costs
of delivering anti-bullying initiatives and collecting data on
incidents. From September 2005, schools will have to include a
policy on tackling homophobia in anti-bullying action plans.
Ofsted will assess performance on the issue.
34.
Formerly, LEAs included a question about homophobic bullying
on exclusion forms, but DfES changes in exclusion codes
resulted in this no longer being featured.
Whilst the
question does still get asked at some governors' meetings, the
removal of the code from exclusion forms does not suggest that
the DfES is addressing the issue of homophobic bullying
seriously enough.
35.
If the Government is to push for a duty on LEAs and schools
to collect and collate information on all types of bullying
then extra resources will have to be allocated. Likewise, the
current LEA push on reporting incidents of bullying and
mainstreaming LGBT rights through the delivery of equalities
training are not currently supported with any additional
resources. These will be vital if the needs of LGBT pupils are
to be met.
References
Anti-Bullying Network (2005)
Building on Strengths: Best Practice when Tackling Homophobic
Bullying in Secondary Schools (Institute of Education/Stonewall)
Bullying – don’t suffer in silence (DfES, 2002)
The bullying of sexual minorities at school: its nature and longterm correlates (Rivers, 2001)
‘Mental health and quality of life of gay men and lesbians in
England and Wales’ (British Journal of Psychiatry, 2003)
Playing it safe: responses of secondary school teachers to
lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils, bullying, Hidden in plain
sight: homelessness amongst lesbian and gay youth
HIV/AIDS education and Section 28 (Stonewall, 1997)
KIDSCAPE survey (1998)
Preventing Homophobic Bullying in Calderdale Schools (Lancashire,
2003)
Queer Bashing (Stonewall survey, 1996)
Safe for all: a best practice guide to prevent homophobic
bullying in secondary schools (Stonewall, 2001)
Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth (Rivers
I., 2000)
Social inclusion: reaching out to bisexual, gay and lesbian youth
(ReachOUT, 1999)
Stand up for us: challenging homophobia in schools (DfES, 2004)
Tackling homophobic bullying (NASUWT, 2001)
Telling it like it is – LGB youth speak out on homophobic
violence (GALOP survey, 1998)
Understanding homophobic bullying in schools: building a safe
learning environment for all pupils
Homophobia, Sexual Orientation and Schools: a Review and
Implications for Action (Institute of Education/DfES, 2004)