Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

V1226 - The School Discipline Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2017 Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should this bill become law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye:
    50.00%
    On the contrary, No
    45.45%
    Abstain
    4.55%

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The School Discipline Regulations 2012 Act (Amendment) Bill 2017, TSR Conservative & Unionist Party


    A

    BILL

    TO



    amend the The School Discipline Regulations 2012 Act to make the payment for exclusions more fair on schools.


    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 - Amendment of The School Discipline Regulations 2012 Act
    (1) 5b under section 25 is to be modified from:
    "order that the proprietor is to make a payment to the local authority in the sum of £4,000 if, following a decision by the panel to quash the proprietor’s original decision, the proprietor—”
    to
    “order that the proprietor is to make a payment to the local authority that is equal to the sum of funding for a pupil for that year if, following a decision by the panel to quash the proprietor’s original decision, the proprietor—”.
    (2) 5b under section 16 is to be modified from:
    “after the coming into force of section 50 of the Education Act 2011, order that the local authority are to make an adjustment to the unit’s budget share for the funding period during which the exclusion occurs in the sum of £4,000 if, following a decision by the panel to quash the management committee’s original decision, the management committee—”
    to
    “after the coming into force of section 50 of the Education Act 2011, order that the local authority are to make an adjustment to the unit’s budget share for the funding period during which the exclusion occurs that is equal to the sum of funding for a pupil for that year if, following a decision by the panel to quash the management committee’s original decision, the management committee—”.
    (3) 5b under section 7 is to be modified from:
    “order that the local authority are to make an adjustment to the school’s budget share for the funding period during which the exclusion occurs in the sum of £4,000 if, following a decision by the panel to quash the governing body’s original decision, the governing body—”
    to
    “order that the local authority are to make an adjustment to the school’s budget share for the funding period during which the exclusion occurs that is equal to the sum of funding for a pupil for that year if, following a decision by the panel to quash the governing body’s original decision, the governing body—”

    2 - Commencement, short title and extent
    (1) This Act shall come into force on 1st September 2017.
    (2) This Act shall be cited as The School Discipline Regulations (Amendment) Act 2017.
    (3) This Act extends to England.

    Spoiler:
    Show




    Notes:

    This amendment will help many schools, including small schools, exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden. The flat rate of £4000 is unfair on schools and it’s more fair that schools make a payment that is equal to the funding for the pupil for that year of who they excluded. Whilst removing the flat rate, schools will continue to contribute to the cost of alternative provisions/PRUs where the pupil will receive their education during the period of exclusion.

    Sources: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made




    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.

    It makes it fairer for all - the sums payable will be proportional to the school's funding, not a flat fee - benefiting some, hindering others.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. This bill benefits schools greatly, especially small schools, allowing them to exclude difficult pupils without fear of financial burden. No school should be forced to not exclude a pupil because the cost of doing so is so dear.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If the aim of this is to make exclusion easier and reduce the burden on schools then it will fail catastrophically.

    Per-pupil funding ranges from around £3,950 to £8,595. For the vast majority of schools (the England average is £4,550.54 per-pupil) this bill does the exact opposite of what it pupports to do. As of 2014/5 only 3 English local authorities have per-pupil funding below £4000 - Cambridgeshire, South Gloucestershire and Leicestershire.

    http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/how-muc...our-school-get

    The question must be asked as to why a bill like this did not provide information as I have detailed above in the notes. Why are we being asked to vote for a solution when no problem has been demonstrated. Is that not antethical to the values of 'conservatism'. Unless the party opposite intend to, in some unprecedented move, drastically reduce the amount of money that goes to educating out children (which would be somewhat unsurprising) then this bill must have been borne of error.

    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Aye. This bill benefits schools greatly, especially small schools, allowing them to exclude difficult pupils without fear of financial burden. No school should be forced to not exclude a pupil because the cost of doing so is so dear.
    If this is really your intention - as opposed to trying to use vagueness to get away with something wretched - then you'll take the opportunity to withdraw this bill and come up with a new one as soon as possible.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If the aim of this is to make exclusion easier and reduce the burden on schools then it will fail catastrophically.
    No, the aim is to make the payment for exclusion more fair by making it equal to per pupil funding instead of just a flat rate.

    Per-pupil funding ranges from around £3,950 to £8,595. For the vast majority of schools (the England average is £4,550.54 per-pupil) this bill does the exact opposite of what it pupports to do. As of 2014/5 only 3 English local authorities have per-pupil funding below £4000 - Cambridgeshire, South Gloucestershire and Leicestershire.

    http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/how-muc...our-school-get

    The question must be asked as to why a bill like this did not provide information as I have detailed above in the notes. Why are we being asked to vote for a solution when no problem has been demonstrated. Is that not antethical to the values of 'conservatism'. Unless the party opposite intend to, in some unprecedented move, drastically reduce the amount of money that goes to educating out children (which would be somewhat unsurprising) then this bill must have been borne of error.
    Nice to see you're doing your research now when it's in the division when you had lots of time to do so when it was in reading stages...

    There is a problem. The payment is not fair on schools. Do you think it's fair that smaller schools have to pay the same price as bigger schools? The National Association of Head Teachers says paying a flat rate has a disproportionate effect on smaller schools. That is not a problem to you?

    I'd like to see you prove to me how this is antithetical to conservatism.

    You're misunderstanding what this bill does. The money that would have been used to fund the education of that pupil for that year in the school would be contributed towards alternative provision. This doesn't reduce the money going out to educating our children because the money would have been used on the child that has been excluded to be educated elsewhere. Funding for other pupils is still protected as the payment is equal to the sum of funding for that pupil who has been excluded.

    If this is really your intention - as opposed to trying to use vagueness to get away with something wretched - then you'll take the opportunity to withdraw this bill and come up with a new one as soon as possible.
    You are really good at making me sound like some devil haha. I don't see what the problem is? Do you not support bigger schools paying more and smaller schools paying less when it comes to exclusions? I guess not because of your opposition to the bill?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    No, the aim is to make the payment for exclusion more fair by making it equal to per pupil funding instead of just a flat rate.



    Nice to see you're doing your research now when it's in the division when you had lots of time to do so when it was in reading stages...

    There is a problem. The payment is not fair on schools. Do you think it's fair that smaller schools have to pay the same price as bigger schools? The National Association of Head Teachers says paying a flat rate has a disproportionate effect on smaller schools. That is not a problem to you?

    I'd like to see you prove to me how this is antithetical to conservatism.

    You're misunderstanding what this bill does. The money that would have been used to fund the education of that pupil for that year in the school would be contributed towards alternative provision. This doesn't reduce the money going out to educating our children because the money would have been used on the child that has been excluded to be educated elsewhere. Funding for other pupils is still protected as the payment is equal to the sum of funding for that pupil who has been excluded.



    You are really good at making me sound like some devil haha. I don't see what the problem is? Do you not support bigger schools paying more and smaller schools paying less when it comes to exclusions? I guess not because of your opposition to the bill?
    I did my reasearch late, as opposed to you who apparently didn't do any at all.

    This bill does not reduce the burden on schools our make exclusion less burdensome. For some schools it will double the burden. It doesn't do what you argued it does it should be withdrawn or you should admit the notes are misleading.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I did my reasearch late, as opposed to you who apparently didn't do any at all.

    This bill does not reduce the burden on schools our make exclusion less burdensome. For some schools it will double the burden. It doesn't do what you argued it does it should be withdrawn or you should admit the notes are misleading.
    Haha. I guess I definitely didn't do my research if I know what impact the policy has on smaller schools!

    "This amendment will help many schools, including small schools, exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden" - when it was talking about financial burden it was referring to the smaller schools. Perhaps it needs rephrasing to make it more clear but it's not misleading because I have pointed out that bigger schools will pay more, smaller ones will pay less. Thus, your argument for the withdrawal of this bill is not compelling and quite redundant.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Haha. I guess I definitely didn't do my research if I know what impact the policy has on smaller schools!

    "This amendment will help many schools, including small schools, exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden" - when it was talking about financial burden it was referring to the smaller schools. Perhaps it needs rephrasing to make it more clear but it's not misleading because I have pointed out that bigger schools will pay more, smaller ones will pay less. Thus, your argument for the withdrawal of this bill is not compelling and quite redundant.
    Which schools will pay less. The tiny minority will pay £50 less, the vast majority will pay £100s more and some £1000s.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Which schools will pay less. The tiny minority will pay £50 less, the vast majority will pay £100s more and some £1000s.
    Smaller schools will pay less than their bigger counterparts because their per pupil funding is smaller. As a result of this bill, bigger schools will be paying more and it's only fair they do so. Anymore questions?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Smaller schools will pay less than their bigger counterparts because their per pupil funding is smaller. As a result of this bill, bigger schools will be paying more and it's only fair they do so. Anymore questions?
    What are you talking about? State schools are funded on a per pupil basis by local authorities regardless of the size of the school.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What are you talking about? State schools are funded on a per pupil basis by local authorities regardless of the size of the school.
    I know that but generally speaking bigger schools get more funding than smaller ones...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I know that but generally speaking bigger schools get more funding than smaller ones...
    That's cos bigger schools have more pupils... and they're getting funding per pupil...
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That's cos bigger schools have more pupils... and they're getting funding per pupil...
    :clap2:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    :clap2:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Smaller schools will pay less than their bigger counterparts because their per pupil funding is smaller. As a result of this bill, bigger schools will be paying more and it's only fair they do so. Anymore questions?
    I want you to read what you wrote very carefully.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I want you to read what you wrote very carefully.
    Oops. *because they have less pupils
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Oops. *because they have less pupils
    But smaller schools won't pay less than their bigger counterparts under this bill.

    If one school is small (400 students) and one school is big (1500 students) and they are both in an average English local authority then they both get about £4550 per pupil.

    Before, to exclude a student (something you want to make easier) they had to payback £4000. Under this bill they will both need to pay back £4550. The big school and the little school both pay the same and both pay more - i.e. They have a larger burden.

    This bill doesn't do what you seem to think it will do. Keep your condescending clapping emojis to yourself.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    But smaller schools won't pay less than their bigger counterparts under this bill.

    If one school is small (400 students) and one school is big (1500 students) and they are both in an average English local authority then they both get about £4550 per pupil.

    Before, to exclude a student (something you want to make easier) they had to payback £4000. Under this bill they will both need to pay back £4550. The big school and the little school both pay the same and both pay more - i.e. They have a larger burden.

    This bill doesn't do what you seem to think it will do. Keep your condescending clapping emojis to yourself.
    Schools that receive higher per pupil funding will pay more and ones that receive lower will pay less. It's not that hard to work out tbh because it's been made clear that the payment will be equal the the per pupil funding for that year in the amendment. Don't know why you're still protesting.

    Ouch
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Schools that receive higher per pupil funding will pay more and ones that receive lower will pay less. It's not that hard to work out tbh because it's been made clear that the payment will be equal the the per pupil funding for that year in the amendment. Don't know why you're still protesting.

    Ouch
    And that has nothing to do with whether the school is bigger or smaller, something you keep going on about.

    Furthermore, the vast majority of schools will be paying more - in many cases much more. So anything about reducing burden is hollow indeed.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    And that has nothing to do with whether the school is bigger or smaller, something you keep going on about.

    Furthermore, the vast majority of schools will be paying more - in many cases much more. So anything about reducing burden is hollow indeed.
    You can talk about bigger schools in terms of funding and not just size, I think it was perfectly fine to say that. It is annoying you so I will stop.

    It reduces the financial burden on those below the flat rate - so the statement is still correct. This also makes the payment more fairer and dependent on per pupil funding, which most people agree makes total sense instead of just a flat rate. This also relieves pressure off alternative provision to try and find funding, because the £4000 does not pay for everything.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    You can talk about bigger schools in terms of funding and not just size, I think it was perfectly fine to say that. It is annoying you so I will stop.

    It reduces the financial burden on those below the flat rate - so the statement is still correct. This also makes the payment more fairer and dependent on per pupil funding, which most people agree makes total sense instead of just a flat rate. This also relieves pressure off alternative provision to try and find funding, because the £4000 does not pay for everything.
    But smaller schools won't pay less.

    Then say what this really is - this is a bill to increase the financial burden on the vast majority of schools, regardless of size, of excluding pupils to increase funding for alternative provision. Correct?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 21, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.