Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

  • 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%

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    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

    Sorry for coming late to this party but I've been away.

    CoffeeGeek, I assume that you're preparing sister legislation to account for the extortionate lack of AEP places available since this bill will make that problem worse.

    If this sister legislation is not in planning, then I will abstain. If the bill passes, I'll write it myself.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    CoffeeGeek, I assume that you're preparing sister legislation to account for the extortionate lack of AEP places available since this bill will make that problem worse.

    If this sister legislation is not in planning, then I will abstain. If the bill passes, I'll write it myself.
    I don't understand... Care to explain how?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I don't understand... Care to explain how?
    I am talking about RL here, I cannot legislate for the impact of MHoC budgets in recent times on this issue since I can only go off RL figures.

    There is a dramatic shortage of places in Alternative Education Provision in some areas in the country. Lack of funding for Education within local authority budgets mean that LAs in need of providing more AEP places cannot afford to do so and disruptive children have to stay in mainstream school due to the legal obligation of the school to ensure that the child in question receives education from somewhere.

    PRUs have dropped in the last few years, and continued cuts to LA budget means this is likely to continue.
    Table-617-75499.jpg
    [http://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=2200&mod-period=3&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup]


    This article details the present state of PRUs, towards the end it talks about the growing demand.
    This article (sorry it's a crip source) details the risks of keeping disruptive children in the mainstream system.


    Your bill makes it easier for schools to put kids in PRUs or AEPs, but they need more places already, and this bill makes that problem worse.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I am talking about RL here, I cannot legislate for the impact of MHoC budgets in recent times on this issue since I can only go off RL figures.

    There is a dramatic shortage of places in Alternative Education Provision in some areas in the country. Lack of funding for Education within local authority budgets mean that LAs in need of providing more AEP places cannot afford to do so and disruptive children have to stay in mainstream school due to the legal obligation of the school to ensure that the child in question receives education from somewhere.

    PRUs have dropped in the last few years, and continued cuts to LA budget means this is likely to continue.
    Table-617-75499.jpg
    [http://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=2200&mod-period=3&mod-area=E92000001&mod-group=AllRegions_England&mod-type=namedComparisonGroup]


    This article details the present state of PRUs, towards the end it talks about the growing demand.
    This article (sorry it's a crip source) details the risks of keeping disruptive children in the mainstream system.


    Your bill makes it easier for schools to put kids in PRUs or AEPs, but they need more places already, and this bill makes that problem worse.
    This is a misunderstanding of what the bill does. Most schools will be paying more towards exclusions as a result of this bill, which would actually discourage schools from excluding many pupils and in fact gives more money to alternative provisions. As a result, local authorities contribute less towards it so it relieves some pressure off the local authority to pay for the alternative provision.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    This is a misunderstanding of what the bill does. Most schools will be paying more towards exclusions as a result of this bill, which would actually discourage schools from excluding many pupils and in fact gives more money to alternative provisions. As a result, local authorities contribute less towards it so it relieves some pressure off the local authority to pay for the alternative provision.
    This amendment will help many schools, including small schools, exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden.

    Not what is says in the notes.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    This amendment will help many schools, including small schools, exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden.

    Not what is says in the notes.
    Many smaller schools (by that I meant those with low per pupil funding) will be able to exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden. I agree the notes aren't perfect but if that's the main reason why you're against this bill then I urge you to think again - the content matters the most. What is correct, is that this bill would make the system more fairer, as it's based on the per pupil funding of a school rather than just a flat rate that does not consider per pupil funding.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Many smaller schools (by that I meant those with low per pupil funding) will be able to exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden. I agree the notes aren't perfect but if that's the main reason why you're against this bill then I urge you to think again - the content matters the most. What is correct, is that this bill would make the system more fairer, as it's based on the per pupil funding of a school rather than just a flat rate that does not consider per pupil funding.
    I think you mean more fair.

    On this matter, I raise the prime minister's view that per pupil funding means that per pupil, schools of whatever size pay the same amount for the alternative education of the same amount of pupils. That is fair to me. If a larger schools pays more then that is due to there being more pupils.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I think you mean more fair.

    On this matter, I raise the prime minister's view that per pupil funding means that per pupil, schools of whatever size pay the same amount for the alternative education of the same amount of pupils. That is fair to me. If a larger schools pays more then that is due to there being more pupils.
    Yes I meant that.

    Well if you think it's fair I ask you to vote in favour of this bill as it will do exactly that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    This amendment will help many schools, including small schools, exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden.
    At first, the notes say that exclusions will be easier for (some) schools.
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    This is a misunderstanding of what the bill does. Most schools will be paying more towards exclusions as a result of this bill, which would actually discourage schools from excluding many pupils and in fact gives more money to alternative provisions. As a result, local authorities contribute less towards it so it relieves some pressure off the local authority to pay for the alternative provision.
    Then you say the opposite.
    And at no point in the bill does it mention an increase in funding for AE providers.
    It is all local authority money. Whether going to schools and then AEPs or going straight to AEPs or both. The LA budget is not being changed by this bill, the total funding remains the same, there is no increased funding, just a slight legal change in the financial flow.
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Many smaller schools (by that I meant those with low per pupil funding) will be able to exclude pupils without fear of too much financial burden. I agree the notes aren't perfect but if that's the main reason why you're against this bill then I urge you to think again - the content matters the most. What is correct, is that this bill would make the system more fairer, as it's based on the per pupil funding of a school rather than just a flat rate that does not consider per pupil funding.
    Then you contradict yourself.
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Well if you think it's fair I ask you to vote in favour of this bill as it will do exactly that.
    I think if your descriptions of this bill are correct, then the change is so minuscule it isn't worth voting on.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    At first, the notes say that exclusions will be easier for (some) schools.
    Then you say the opposite.
    And at no point in the bill does it mention an increase in funding for AE providers.
    It is all local authority money. Whether going to schools and then AEPs or going straight to AEPs or both. The LA budget is not being changed by this bill, the total funding remains the same, there is no increased funding, just a slight legal change in the financial flow.
    Then you contradict yourself.
    I think if your descriptions of this bill are correct, then the change is so minuscule it isn't worth voting on.
    Where is this conversation going? I've already said the notes aren't perfect several times and could be improved but the content is more important...

    You've totally misinterpreted what I've said. I never mentioned there's an increase in funding, I said that schools would be contributing more towards the education of that pupil in APs. If I wanted to say that it would increase funding, I would have explicitly mentioned it, which I didn't.

    I haven't contradicted myself there at all. Most schools will indeed be paying more as a result of this, however smaller schools (those with low per pupil funding) will be paying less.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Where is this conversation going? I've already said the notes aren't perfect several times and could be improved but the content is more important...

    You've totally misinterpreted what I've said. I never mentioned there's an increase in funding, I said that schools would be contributing more towards the education of that pupil in APs. If I wanted to say that it would increase funding, I would have explicitly mentioned it, which I didn't.

    I haven't contradicted myself there at all.
    This conversation will end two ways: you start making sense, or one of us gives up. I'm hoping it's the former.

    You said this bill "gives more money to alternative provision". Giving more money (last I checked) is an increase in funding.

    Yeah right. Course you haven't.


    Most schools will indeed be paying more as a result of this, however smaller schools (those with low per pupil funding) will be paying less.
    If most schools are paying more then, where is that money coming from? Because you tell me that there's no increase in funding. Or maybe there is (see above),
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    This conversation will end two ways: you start making sense, or one of us gives up. I'm hoping it's the former.

    You said this bill "gives more money to alternative provision". Giving more money (last I checked) is an increase in funding.

    Yeah right. Course you haven't.


    If most schools are paying more then, where is that money coming from? Because you tell me that there's no increase in funding. Or maybe there is (see above),
    Perhaps you ought to look at the whole sentence, rather than selectively quoting what I said and using it however you want to try and support your argument... It's not even smart, just very cunning of you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Perhaps you ought to look at the whole sentence, rather than selectively quoting what I said and using it however you want to try and support your argument... It's not even smart, just very cunning of you.
    I have done. My point still stands.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I have done. My point still stands.
    Let's have another look shall we, "most schools will be paying more towards exclusions as a result of this bill, which would actually discourage schools from excluding many pupils and in fact gives more money to alternative provisions." - if you looked again you would realise I was referring to the contributions from the school. The money given from schools to APs is increased if their per pupil funding is higher, not funding. Your point is redundant.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Let's have another look shall we, "most schools will be paying more towards exclusions as a result of this bill, which would actually discourage schools from excluding many pupils and in fact gives more money to alternative provisions." - if you looked again you would realise I was referring to the contributions from the school. The money given from schools to APs is increased if their per pupil funding is higher, not funding. Your point is redundant.
    You used the word and. Grammatically, that means you're referring to the bill. If you used the word as, then your point would be correct. You have become confused between what you have said, and what you think that you have said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Rakas21


    Mr Speaker please may you change my vote to a nay, thank you very much. x
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If this bill factors in for "alternative provision" then can we have that guaranteed. Not that I don't trust CG is genuine but it seems that this could be exploited.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Rakas21
    Please switch my Yes to a No – I'm not convinced this actually does anything of great benefit and is at best neutral.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    And it begins...
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    If this bill factors in for "alternative provision" then can we have that guaranteed. Not that I don't trust CG is genuine but it seems that this could be exploited.
    I'd be interested to hear how this could be exploited.
 
 
 
Updated: July 21, 2017
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.

Poll
How are you feeling about your A-level results?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.