MIX, match and balance was the theme of Sean McPartlin’s article on the tension between inclusion and exclusion (TESS, March 15). It was a humane overview of the issue, as we might have expected. It was also a cop-out because it did not address the crucial issue - where is the balance in the tension between these two opposing forces?

My thesis is simple - the balance has been tipped too far against the classroom teacher and, because of this, against the overwhelming majority of pupils and parents who have positive aspirations for their future.

The concept of balance in the article implied the need to look at the other side of the coin and indeed the difficulties of dealing with highly disruptive pupils were highlighted. What the article did not include was any reference to the sheer scale of the damage such pupils can inflict on teachers and those they teach.

In this category, I would include the disruptive pupil whose very real and pressing needs are seldom given the priority they deserve.

I do not doubt Mr McPartlin’s sincerity when he referred to the commitment of the teaching staff in his school to the inclusion of the specific pupils he mentions. I do not doubt that all teachers likely to teach the pupils were consulted.

I doubt, however, that when a pupil is excluded from his school (or any other for that matter) the teachers of that pupil are consulted. The first they will hear of an exclusion is when they read of it in a “management” memo.

This gap between “managers” (I use the term only because Mr McPartlin used it) and classroom teachers over the issue of pupil exclusion must be bridged by giving classroom teachers a decisive voice in such exclusions and re-admissions. While such power may be “the least acceptable part of a manager’s remit”, I can assure Mr McPartlin that most classroom practitioners would love to be able to exercise it.

There will be those who protest that classroom teachers are not capable of exercising such powers. They may wish to offer this argument to a “lowly” police constable if they are stopped for speeding or any other offence. Perhaps they should insist on being charged by the chief constable instead.

It has always seemed bizarre to me that some pupils are allowed to wander around schools exhibiting behaviour which, in a public place, would lead to intervention by the police. However, since they choose not to exhibit such behaviour in front of a “manager”, they may do so with impunity for significant periods of time.

Empowering classroom teachers in this way would bring responsibilities also.Classroom teachers would have to be involved as never before in readmission procedures and in negotiations with the home. They would have to become familiar with the procedures of the children’s panel system and the working methods of fellow professionals such as social workers. And yes, they would have to face up to searching questions as to their own effectiveness as classroom teachers. They would have to be responsible for detailed reports which might be required for an appeals process.

There might be some who would shrink from such responsibilities. My view is that the majority of teachers would welcome it.

The recent agreement following the publication of the McCrone report stresses time and again the primacy of the learning process and the classroom teacher who moves this forward. It is now time that such primacy was afforded to teachers over pupil exclusion.

Peter Wright is a district official with the Scottish Secondary Teachers’

Association.