(Re)constructing the Head Teacher: Legal Narratives and the Politics of School Exclusions
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2005.00330.x |
| Author | Daniel Monk |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 32, NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 2005
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 399±423
(Re)constructing the Head Teacher:
Legal Narratives and the Politics of School Exclusions
Daniel Monk*
School exclusions are a site of political and social contestation and in
recent years statutory reforms and popular demands have focused on
increasing the autonomy of head teachers. This article explores this
trend and questions why, in a culture of human and children's rights,
head teachers have such extensive powers within their schools and why
law has, to a large extent, failed to provide a check on these powers. It
does so not by doctrinal analysis of domestic and human rights law but,
rather, by enquiring into how legal narratives construct the role of the
head teacher and by locating the practice of exclusions within a
broader social and political context. It suggests that demanding that
the head teacher be unfettered in his or her decisions relating to
exclusions ought not to be understood as a policy of `non-intervention'
or a return to a `reassuring' past but, rather, as a contemporary policy
that reinforces the construction of excluded pupils as marginalized
non-citizens.
INTRODUCTION
In spite of the importance attached this office, little examination has been
made of the evolution of this concept of the `Headmaster'. At most, it is
ascribed to the respect for `tradition' usually considered characteristic of the
English approach to social institutions . . . but this furnishes no explanation as
to why a particular institution has survived, nor what successive and diverse
influences have sustained and modified its original form and later growth.
399
ßCardiff University Law School 2005, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
*School of Law, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street,
London WC1E 7HX, England
d.monk@bbk.ac.uk
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2005 Socio-Legal Studies
Association Conference and I am grateful to the participants for their contributions. Many
thanks also to Ann Blair, Maurice Bridgeland, Gillian Douglas, Julia Eisner, and the
anonymous referees for their constructive comments. Opinions and errors of course
remain my own.
Close examination of such influences may, however, show that what is termed
`tradition' is in reality not merely due to inertia and an aversion to change, but
to a delicate counterpoise resulting from a series of dissimilar but
compensating social factors.
1
Over the last twenty years, school exclusions have been the object of
considerable public, academic, and governmental concern. For some, the
increased use of exclusion, the effect they have on those excluded, and the
class and race dimensions of the practice represent an indictment of the
education and broader social policies under both the Conservative and New
Labour governments.
2
At the same time, beyond these critical approaches,
the increase is frequently perceived as a reflection of a breakdown in
traditional authority and the rare successful challenges to exclusions have on
occasion dominated the tabloid headlines; on one such occasion the Daily
Mail criticized the reinstatement of a pupil and described it as `a chilling
cameo of so much that is wrong in modern Britain'.
3
Law is an important site for exploring these conflicting interpretations. A
statutory framework for exclusions was created for the first time by the
Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and since then the law has been amended on
numerous occasions, frequently in a highly politicized context.
4
However,
throughout this period, what has remained consistent is the central role of
head teachers, both in relation to the legal process and the broader political
debates. This was particularly evident in the 2005 general election. For the
Conservative Party it was one of the key issues of their campaign; their
manifesto stated that `Head Teachers have been denied the final say on
expulsions' and that, if elected, they would give head teachers full control
over the issue.
5
The Labour party manifesto, referring to the recent reforms
in the Education Act 2002, claimed, that `We have given head teachers the
powers needed to maintain discipline and the highest standards of conduct'.
6
That both the major parties highlighted the importance of, and their
unqualified support for, the role of the head teacher obscured the fact that the
powers of the head teacher in relation to exclusions are considerable and
have been since the 1986 Act. Indeed, their powers in this area are currently
so extensive that were they to be translated into the context of the criminal
400
1G.Baron `Some Aspects of the ``Headmaster Tradition''' in Sociology, History and
Education: A Reader, ed. P.W. Musgrave (1970) 184.
2 See, for example, C. Parsons, Education, Exclusion and Citizenship (1999).
3M.Clarke, `Another £200,000 lottery lunacy . . . How your cash helped death-threat
boys win their appeal' Daily Mail,12November 2002.
4 See N. Harris and K. Eden, with A. Blair, Challenges to School Exclusion (2000) ch. 5
and J. Ford, M. Hughes. and D. Ruebain. Education Law and Practice (2005) ch. 8.
5Conservative Election Manifesto (2005) 8±9. `What's wrong with a little Discipline
in Schools? Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?', one of the six widely used
slogans of the Conservative Party campaign.
6The Labour Party Manifesto (2005) 38. The reforms in the 2002 Act are discussed
below.
ßCardiff University Law School 2005
To continue reading
Request your trial