Is Mr Balls Beginning to See a Bit of Sense?

Sir Roger Singleton & Ed Balls

Is Ed Balls beginning to see a bit of sense or is it (as my cynical brain informs me) just that he is worried about his position in the next election if he doesn't do something about the smacking loophole right away?

Smacking pupils in part-time schools could be banned

Sir Roger Singleton has been asked by Ed Balls to consider the rules on smacking
The loophole which allows corporal punishment to be used in part-time schools is to be scrutinised by the government's child safety adviser.

Children's Secretary Ed Balls is writing to Sir Roger Singleton asking him to urgently consider the rules on physical punishment.
The corporal punishment ban does not cover schools where lessons are taught for less than 12.5 hours per week.
MPs have challenged the use of physical punishments in religious schools.
Mr Balls has written to his chief adviser on the safety of children asking him to re-consider the rules surrounding the use of corporal punishment in "part-time educational and learning settings".


Schools Minister Vernon Coaker has also written to MP Ann Cryer, following her calls in the House of Commons that there should be no exemption from the ban on corporal punishment for "teachers in madrassas or in other religious schools".


Corporal punishment has been made illegal in state and independent schools - but parents are allowed to give their children a "mild smack".


This right to smack extends to those who have parental responsibility, such as grandparents or other family members.
It is under this exemption that adults in part-time educational settings have been able to defend their use of corporal punishment as "reasonable punishment", because they are held to have taken on the status of someone standing in for a parent.


Mr Balls, in his letter to Sir Roger, raises the question of when this interpretation is applied to "religious instruction that children attend at the weekend". "We are keen to establish a clear understanding of the issues here, while mindful of the need to ensure that we do not create any unintended problems," writes Mr Balls.


In his reply to Ms Cryer in the House of Commons last week, Mr Balls said: "The important point to make is that there is not one rule for a child in a madrassa and another for a child in a school or in any other circumstance. "The use of physical punishment against any child is wrong; it is outside the law and is not fair to children. "I do not think that we should tolerate any use of physical punishment in any school or learning setting in which trusted adults are supposed to be looking after children, not abusing them."


But the letters from Mr Balls and Mr Coaker both highlight concerns that if the exemption were to be withdrawn it could cause unintended consequences for families. Mr Coaker suggests that grandparents trying to help support their families could also face a ban on administering punishment.


A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families says ministers want to clarify the rules surrounding such part-time educational settings, and want Sir Roger to respond by next week.