Excluded From School

Systemic Practice for Mental Health and Education Professionals

Sue Rendall, Morag Stuart

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781135843557
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Elementary Education

Excluded From School exposes the reasons why, despite many national and local initiatives, large numbers of children continue to tax the education system to such a degree that they become permanently excluded from school.

Sue Rendall and Morag Stuart draw on their experience in psychology and education to demonstrate the need for a more thorough exploration of the underlying root causes of the problem. Based on a systemic framework, their approach allows the inclusion of a vast range of possible contributory factors: within the child, within the family, within the school, and within the complex interrelations between these three systems. By demonstrating the need for inter-discipline and inter-agency collaboration, the authors succeed in presenting a persuasive challenge to the blame culture which exists between schools, parents and educational professionals and policymakers in relation to school exclusion.

The original research presented here, along with the inclusion of the experiences of children, parents and teachers, provides a valuable new perspective on the problem of school exclusions that will be welcomed by all professionals working in this field.

Chapter 1

The wider social and political context

---

Setting the scene

In this book, we describe a study that we carried out in an attempt to increase understanding of the factors that lead to some children being permanently excluded from school. The desire to design and implement such a study arose initially from the clinical experience of the first author in her work as an educational psychologist employed by a local education authority, which involved working with pupils who had been excluded from school. The cases of two pupils in particular caused her to wonder what it was about these two young people, who were similar in some ways but markedly different in others in terms of their educational and medical histories, their family circumstances and the ethos of the two schools from which they were excluded, that had led to them being excluded. This in turn raised in her a curiosity about the circumstances of other children who had been excluded from school, and a desire to understand whether and in what ways children who become permanently excluded from school might differ from children of the same age, gender, ethnicity and school who have not been excluded.

There were clear and obvious differences between these two pupils, whom we shall call Nadine and Richard. Nadine was female, white, from a working-class family, living in a council owned property with her younger sister and divorced mother. Richard was male, black African-Caribbean, from a professional family, living with his younger brother and both parents in their own private house. Upon further enquiry, some similarities became apparent. Both were the elder of two children in the family. Both had well above average general ability, although each school from which they were excluded had described them as being of average ability but underachieving. Both were excluded during their first year in the secondary school.

Other similarities included both having medical conditions which had required hospitalisation throughout their lives. Nadine suffered from epilepsy and diabetes, Richard suffered from severe asthma and eczema. There had been considerable family conflict in each family. Nadine’s parents were divorced and Richard reported that his parents constantly argued and his mother had said that she was going to leave. Both pupils had been referred to the educational psychologist and local child guidance centre, but both had been excluded from school before receiving an appointment. Both pupils blamed their exclusion and difficulties entirely upon things beyond their control. Nadine blamed her exclusion on ‘stupid teachers not understanding [her] medical condition’ and Richard blamed ‘racist teachers and other kids’ for his difficulties. Neither was able to offer any suggestions as to what they might have done differently which might have helped their situation.

These two cases highlighted for us the complicated aspects involved in attempting to understand what contributes to some pupils being excluded from school. We have met many children who appear to come from situations and conditions similar to Nadine and Richard, but who do not get excluded from school. For this reason it was important for us to include a matched comparison group of non- excluded children in the present study, in an attempt to clarify why this might be so.

Working directly with permanently excluded children has reinforced our opinion that there is merit in taking a holistic model of enquiry when trying to understand how these permanent exclusions came about. Behaviour only acquires meaning and can only be understood within the context in which it occurs. Children do not exist in a vacuum, but within many complex interrelating systems. They develop as individuals with their own personal understandings, belief systems and ways of making sense of the world: we will refer to this as the ‘within-child’ system. This development happens in the immediate context of their families, which we refer to as the ‘within- family’ system, that is influenced by family members, family histories, beliefs and values and family scripts and experiences. Children’s development also takes place in the context of the institutions of the wider society, with school being of major importance here. We refer to this as the ‘within-school’ system, which is in turn influenced by school structures, ethos, values and beliefs, legislation and society’s notion of the function and place of schools, teachers and education.

Our study therefore embraces a systemic model of enquiry, the theoretical bases of which are described in detail in Chapter 2. The study uses both quantitative and qualitative data in order to elicit a rich picture of the complexities involved in the interrelating systems studied. We have used measures such as psychometric tests, that lend themselves to quantitative analysis using statistical tests. We have also used semi-structured interviews and questionnaires to identify recurring themes from the stories that pupils, parents and teachers told us, and which lend themselves to qualitative analysis. This dual approach to data collection and analysis provides a more realistic and deeper picture of the experiences and underlying conflicts and dilemmas that exist for pupils, parents and teachers. We believe that the first step towards preventing permanent exclusions from school is to have the fullest possible understanding of the circumstances in which they occur.

We were also constantly mindful of the ethical issues that inevitably arise in the course of a study such as the one we set out to conduct. For example, from the onset of the research engagement all pupils and parents were told that taking part in our study would not help to reverse the decision to exclude nor to find them another school to attend. However, where pupils, parents or teachers clearly had needs that needed to be addressed, we were able to refer them on to appropriate agencies. In writing up the study in book form, we have been careful to use pseudonyms throughout and to ensure that we maintain the confidentiality of children, parents, schools and teachers.

In 1991 when Nadine and Richard were permanently excluded from their schools, there appeared to be little public concern or debate about exclusions from school, although shortly after this time educationalists, and later politicians, began to express concerns about the numbers of school exclusions, the costs to the public purse and the effects which pupils out of school might be having upon local communities, society and themselves. The remainder of this chapter first presents national and local data about exclusion from school, and the debates that have arisen in this context. We then give a brief overview of the study we undertook, and outline the way in which we have structured our material in the chapters that follow.

The national context

Although children have probably been expelled, suspended, or excluded from schools since schools began, exclusion has been of particular concern to educationalists, government, the media and the public at large since the early 1990s. Prior to 1990 there was some academic interest in and professional concern about the reasons why some pupils faced and experienced exclusion (for example, Galloway et al. 1982; McLean 1987; McManus 1987). Reliable data on permanent exclusions has been obtained only since 1996, from Annual Schools’ Census returns made by schools to the DfEE in January each year. However, there was anxiety from the early 1990s onwards that the number of temporary and permanent exclusions from schools was rising, and this anxiety was frequently accompanied by claims that structural changes in the ways schools were managed (for example, the decentralisation of power within the education system introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988, which introduced a greater complexity to the tasks of schools and teachers) were not only exacerbating schools’ difficulties in meeting the needs of pupils with challenging behaviour, but perhaps reducing their desire or willingness to do so. The subsequent introduction of the National Curriculum, National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and Performance League Tables reinforced these difficulties, by making academic outcomes the prime focus of education. The development and promotion of emotional well-being, social awareness and inclusion began to be viewed as important only with respect to how they affected academic outcome.

DfES figures published in 2001-2 showed that permanent exclusions had reached an ‘unacceptably high’ peak of 12,700 (17 pupils in every 10,000) representing a threefold increase between the early and late 1990s. Some of this increase was doubtless due to important changes in the law regarding exclusions from school which came into force in 1994. The category of ‘indefinite’ exclusion, where pupils were sent home with no indication as to when or under what circumstances they could return to school (which caused great concern to parents, LEAs and educationalists, as often this resulted in pupils getting ‘lost’ in the system and therefore effectively leaving school prior to the statutory school leaving age) was abolished. This left schools with only two options for excluding pupils: ‘fixed term’ exclusion, where pupils were sent home for a fixed amount of time, after which they could return to school; or ‘permanent’ exclusion, when pupils could never return to that school. At this point in time, therefore, schools had either to permanently exclude pupils who had been on ‘indefinite’ exclusions, or allow them to return to school, with most probably becoming permanently excluded. Since September 1994 the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the Head Teachers’ Association have continued to campaign for the reinstatement of the ‘indefinite exclusion’ option, arguing that it provides a more flexible option for planning to meet children’s educational needs.

Whatever the cause of the sudden upsurge in permanent exclusions, it galvanised the government into setting as a priority the reduction of levels of permanent exclusions. The importance of this priority was emphasised when school exclusions became one of the specific topics to be addressed by the Social Exclusion Policy Unit, launched in 1997 by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and reporting directly to him. By 2002, the unit planned to reduce exclusions by one-third, to provide excluded pupils with a full-time timetable within three weeks of exclusion, to provide funds for prevention of school exclusion, to require school performance tables of GCSE results to include all Year 10 exclusions, and for particular attention to be given to looked after children.

Setting and emphasising this as a priority appears at first to have had some effect, with overall levels of permanent exclusion decreasing slightly at first (to 12,300 in 1997-8) followed by a further massive 30 per cent decrease to just over 8300 (11 pupils in every 10,000) in 1999-2000. However, figures have begun to creep up again since then, increasing to 9,500 (12 pupils in every 10,000) by 2001-2. Throughout this period, the vast majority of exclusions (roughly 80 per cent) have been from secondary schools, but pupils attending special schools are the most likely to be excluded, with rates of 36 pupils in every 10,000 excluded from special schools. Pupils with statements of special educational needs (SEN) are also over- represented among the excluded, by a ratio of almost 8:1 during the exclusion peak of 1996-7. Boys are overwhelmingly more likely to be excluded than girls, with a steady 4:1 ratio of boys to girls. Boys are also excluded at younger ages than girls, although for both boys and girls exclusion is most common in 13 and 14 year olds (pupils in Years 9 and 10), with one in every 250 pupils in this age range excluded. Exclusion rates vary by ethnic group as well as by gender, with the highest rates found in black African-Caribbean pupils. Black girls are three times as likely to be excluded as white girls; black boys are twice as likely to be excluded as white boys. Children who are ‘looked after’ by local authorities are also at increased risk of permanent exclusion from school.

At a National Children’s Bureau Conference ‘Exclusion – or Inclusion – and the School System’ held in February 1997, Robin Squire MP, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools, DfEE said:

Good behaviour and effective discipline are at the heart of school standards. It is vital that schools should have the skills and the support necessary to manage pupil behaviour effectively. There is properly a balance to be struck. We need to ensure that pupils with problems receive effective education and support. But that should not be at the cost of undermining the education of the vast majority of well behaved pupils either because resources are redirected unduly, or because their classes are persistently disrupted . . . We are committed to ensuring that schools are able to deal with behaviour problems as far as possible without having to exclude pupils.

This position is somewhat ambiguous and affords schools and LEAs a degree of flexible interpretation of which many may take the fullest advantage. The difficulty of interpretation lies in such questions as how does a school support challenging pupils and meet their needs without redirecting resources, and what constitutes ‘unduly’ with respect to such redirection? More often than not it is the tolerance level of the school to manage challenging behaviour that determines whether or not the spirit of Robin Squire’s words is adhered to, and whether or not a pupil is excluded. Government rhetoric may sound convincing but is seldom helpful in recognising some of the more subtle challenges which face schools and pupils who are experiencing difficulties.

Indeed, in his presentation to the same conference, David Hart, then General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), explained his members’ position with regard to the allocation of resources, saying that the overall problem was that of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, and that the needs of the few to be ‘rehabilitated’ could not be done ‘on the cheap’. He claimed that the introduction of league tables, the consequent general competitiveness between schools, and the need for schools to attract pupils in order to attract funding had all contributed to the increase in exclusions and to the breakdown of necessary systems and partnerships. These factors all serve to lower tolerance levels towards pupils with challenging behaviour. There was now also increased recognition of teachers’ rights not to be assaulted or to have their tolerance stretched to breaking point. Furthermore, the introduction and demands of the SEN Code of Practice, within a context of constant debate about, and under funding of, integration and inclusive education, led to difficulties for schools surrounding implementation of the code, and frustration on the part of teachers.

It is clear from this list that changes in the wider system of society are causing changes in the schools and education system which increase the likelihood of producing a subgroup of children who do not ‘fit in’ and for whom permanent exclusion from school is seen to be the only option. Hart continued to describe the development of ‘an education and social underclass’, comprising those pupils who are unattractive to schools, either because they are of low educational ability and/or because they present behaviour which is difficult to manage. These pupils are ‘unattractive’ because they are a drain on schools’ financial and time resources. Consequently they often do not have their needs met within the mainstream sector, with mainstream schools believing that specialist provision is more appropriate. The National Association of Head Teachers’ view is that it is the combination of reduced tolerance on behalf of schools and governors, combined with a lack of adequate funding, which has led to the increase in excluded pupils. It also subscribes to the view that no pupil should be readmitted to a mainstream school until that school receives additional funding and resources and a favourable pupil report. This suggests that each excluded pupil would need to attend alternative educational provision in order to acquire a favourable pupil report; a suggestion which is at odds with the DfEE view, as presented by Robin Squires, that ‘permanently excluded pupils are to be admitted fairly rapidly to another mainstream school’.

The NAHT has advised that the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) should ensure that initial teacher training courses address the need to understand the modern school. As acknowledged by Hart, the introduction of published league tables, Ofsted inspections and the public identification of ‘failing schools’ provide little incentive for schools to ‘hang on’ to those pupils who are likely to affect their reputation and public image. Teacher training, especially training to teach in the secondary sector, has tended to be curriculum and subject focused, with little emphasis being placed upon trainee teachers being taught child or adolescent development.

With a new government taking office in 1997, with a mission statement of ‘Education, Education, Education’, greater emphasis has been placed upon evidence-based practice, outcome measures, performance-related pay for teachers, market forces and raising achievement. Parsons (1999) highlights some of the diverse and contradictory aims of education in the UK, and describes the tensions between individual development, vocational training and discipline. Parsons argues that where societies, and in particular educationalists and politicians, place their value affects the development of policies which can lead to the prevention or encouragement of the withdrawal of some childre...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• 1 The wider social and political context
• 2 Ways of understanding complexity: Systems and narrative theory
• 3 Understanding the children: Ability, attainment, self-esteem and locus of control
• 4 Understanding the families: Risk and resilience
• 5 Understanding the schools: Co-operative or coercive ethos?
• 6 Four case studies of excluded pupils
• 7 The child, the family and the school: Putting it all together
• References
• Index