Abstract
During the academic year 1998 - 1999 a newly formed Education
Authority entered into a joint project with the local Further Education College
to set up educational provision for approximately twenty pupils who were
excluded in Year 11. Prior to the project starting these pupils were allocated
"Home Tuition" under the designation of "Education other than at
School".(EOTAS). As the project developed and expanded, over one hundred
disaffected Key Stage 4 pupils were referred and it soon became clear that the
work was producing remarkable results. The project offered an innovative and
highly flexible individualised curriculum underpinned by a dedicated social
support system.
Burden (1998) had pointed out "Illuminative Evaluation" was
"the perfect vehicle for consultancy-orientated psychologists" to carry out
research of an evaluative nature. Consequently this methodological approach was
adopted.
Introduction
According to Norwich (1998) "Professional educational psychologists have a continuing interest in researching real world educational needs and policy problems". (Page 8) Unfortunately opportunities for educational psychologists to pursue in depth real world research are rare. Consequently, when one of the first issues a newly created Local Authority decided to tackle was the growing problem of exclusion, the author, a student on the Manchester Doctorate in Educational Psychology, explored the possibility with the Assistant Director to use an action research approach in relation to this problem. The underlying issue of how to get disaffected and disillusioned young people re-interested in education needed a radical approach. The initial idea was to bring all the excluded Year 11 pupils into the local Further Education College and feed the pupils into existing vocational courses. Funding for the first year of the project was reallocated after the closure of the Key Stage 3 Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) and the Home Tutor budget. The local psychological service, in the past, had had little to do with Year 11 pupils due to policy and resource decisions. This apparently was not an untypical arrangement. (Regan,1999) With this project that situation was significantly revised and revealed the value of having a psychologist as a member of the team when the success of the project depended on a key cognitive shift, that is, having rejected "schooling" the project members would embrace "life long learning". An initial research proposal was drawn up based on the premise that the project would be for a maximum of thirty pupils. This had to be rapidly revised as the project expanded to include all pupils at Key Stage 4 not attending school. Fortunately the research methodology chosen, "Illuminative Evaluation" (Parlett and Hamilton,1972) allowed for the vagaries of "real world research" (Robson,1993).
Methodology A key feature of illuminative evaluation is that the researcher becomes thoroughly familiar with the day to day reality of the setting under study through observation of and discussion with the participating individuals. The chief task is to unravel the scene, isolate its significant features, delineate cycles of cause and effect, comprehend relationships between beliefs and practices and between organisational patterns and the relationships of individuals. With illuminative evaluation there is a continuous cycle: the researcher observes, inquires further, reflects and then seeks to explain. (Macgregor, 1989) Consequently during the first stage of EOTAS as much time as possible was spent in the same environment as the project members. The intention was to establish initial contact with as many students, lecturers and 'significant others' as possible. Field notes were kept on discussions, interactions and encounters. Particular attention was paid to common incidents, reoccurring trends and issues frequently raised in discussion and "the unusual". The first stage was promptly written up and shared with the key members of the project, to check if the reality captured in print reflected the day to day reality of the participants. In dealing with "the unusual" instances were explored individually, for example, a pattern of difficult behaviour in a small group of students was observed as a Monday and Wednesday only phenomenon. Ultimately the cause was found to be related to weekend recreational drug use, with an ongoing high on Monday and a come-down depression on Wednesdays. Working with the students on solutions rapidly resolved this problem.
The second stage of the study focussed on the most frequent phenomena, occurrences, or groups of topics for more sustained and intensive inquiry. The aim at this stage was to have established a relaxed, non-threatening relationship with the individuals concerned, thereby facilitating a trusting and sensitive climate in which the inquiry could become more directed, systematic and selective, without creating either an atmosphere of unease or significant change in the overall situation.
The third stage investigated the general principles underlying the organisation of the project, considering patterns of cause and effect within its operation and placing individual findings within a broader explanatory context.
Obviously these three stages overlapped and functionally interrelated. The transition from stage to stage occurred as problem areas became progressively clarified and defined. Within this three-stage framework, an information profile was systematically assembled using data collected in four main ways: through observation, interviews, questionnaires documentary and background sources.
Decision-making, Evaluation and Illumination.
A principal purpose of an evaluative study is to contribute to decision-making. With this project there were three separate but related groups of decision-makers who were interested in the evaluators feedback, they were the projects participants, the projects originators and planners and interested "outsiders". Each group looked to the researcher for help in making different decisions. With illuminative evaluation the researchers key contribution consisted of concentrating on a clear exposition of the gathered information to assist each group in making informed evidence based decisions.
Stage One
At the organisational level, from the College perspective, the project had evolved from previous initiatives, in particular, "Welfare Education Link Group" (WELG). This was set up in 1994 by the Educational Welfare Service(EWS) to cater for ten non-attenders. WELG used the Government's relaxation of regulations and permitted students of fourteen-plus to attend college courses. The College Management welcomed the arrival of EOTAS as a project with a key member of staff and a named manager in the education office. This allowed for easier communication and clearer demarcations of responsibility concerning the welfare and education of students under sixteen in the College.
The College allocated a base room (L10). The project was to be run by a male teacher re-deployed from the PRU, supported by two female staff. The initial starter list included all Year 11 pupils on permanent exclusion with no other offer of an alternative school placement and pupils who were part of the WELG package. As the term progressed 'the list' expanded to include pupils previously referred to the PRU, school phobics, pupils returning to the District in Year 11 without a receiving school and school refusers known to Social Services or the EWS. By December 1998 the number registered on the project had grown to seventy-four and included a significant number of Year 10 pupils. .
The staff in L10 began by organising the individual time-tables. All students had to sign in at the base room before going to their College courses. For some students, who had signed up for GCSE courses this then meant getting a bus to Campus P a number of miles away. Students who were registered for vocational courses also had time-tabled periods in Room L10 for basic subjects. The three staff were occasionally supported by other personnel including Home Tutors, outside speakers and volunteers. Equipment from the PRU had been reallocated to L10 and provided sufficient computers for students to access various programmed learning packages. L10 had to function in a number of ways, as a teaching room, a drop-in centre, an office, a staff room and a meeting room.
During the first term an extensive data-base was collated. Patterns of
interest and concern soon began to emerge. These were reflected back to
participants through on going discussion, focus groups (Millward 1995) and a
document outlining the term from the different perspectives of the L10 staff,
students and College staff. Issues revolved round essentially practical and
factual events at the surface level masking the need to resolve dilemmas in the
social and emotional domain, as one member of staff stated:
"Here we've
got to be seen responding to things. They want action. They want things
resolved. We are the guests here. It's a very precarious situation - in some
ways a lot more pressure."
By the end of Stage One the following "common themes" emerged had:
In keeping with the research design the first five themes were further explored within the framework of "progressive focussing" at Stage Two of the project and the sixth theme, 'Outcomes' at Stage Three.
Stage Two
Pupil profiles
In order to explore this issue in ways
relevant to the project an action research approach was taken. Pupil profiles
were being gathered, but in an unstructured way, mainly as a response to a
crisis or issue concerning individual students. Through ongoing discussion
using an educational psychology consultancy approach with L10 staff the
following 'actions' were taken:
Student profiles followed the format of keeping a log. Time was allocated at the end of the year to analyse the content and review the format. Student profiles soon began to show different patterns, depending usually on the amount of outside agency involvement or patterns of attendance. Following referral some pupils were refused entry to the project. Reasons included the problem of maintaining the stability of established groups. Generally this was managed with individual time-tables and the staff were extremely creative in keeping students apart who were 'feuding' with one another or who were members of different rival gangs. Two potential students were referred elsewhere because existing students felt confident enough with staff to share highly sensitive information concerning the complex world of drug dealing.
Reasons for referral
At the beginning of Stage Two seventy-four students were on role and attending courses. Of these fourteen had been permanently excluded, forty-eight were referred for non-attendance reasons and twelve were "in danger of being excluded". This simple numerical approach hides the multiple and varied reasons behind referrals to EOTAS, it also hides the degree of distress, suffering, anger and upset experienced by the students and their families. As part of the L10 team the author worked with a volunteer welfare assistant to design a study of pupils feelings about their education (Olly 1999) A questionnaire was constructed and delivered using an individual interview approach. Student's perceptions as to why they were on the project reveal a "much harder edge"
Student "I was suspended for threatening a teacher, I felt provoked and was called a liar".
Student "Didn't settle in new school. The staff weren't helpful except one teacher who was helpful. I was allowed to work in isolation but wasn't on my own. I was nervous of other pupils.
Student "Hated it (Secondary school) from the start. I didn't like the atmosphere, I felt sick and worried."
Student "I started truanting, there were medical reasons. I acted horribly and started fighting. I didn't feel I could tell anyone. I am a private person."
Forty-two students completed the interview. They were asked to discuss what they considered to be the main school-based factors that disrupted their education. Six factors were identified by more than one pupil. These included: relationships with teachers (8), bullying (8), fighting (6), "being naughty" (3), moving school (3), being involved in an accident (3). Individual students identified further factors, namely: the work was too hard, the school environment, relationships with other pupils, poor school, moving school, being hospitalised, trauma at home, ill health, hard tests, educational provision (support) being changed, boredom and bereavement. Students' comments provided details of not only factors but also reasons and outcomes.
Student: "Missed a lot of school as I was in hospital. I did have teachers in hospital but it didn't help to keep up to date with school. No co-ordination between them".
Student: "Didn't settle in, on the first day I was in three fights. Didn't get on with the teachers at all. I didn't go in, they cared more about the uniform than the people".
Student: "I was upset as X (a professional) lied to me about going to school. I felt they didn't listen".
Student: "Work was a bit hard, I got some help with work. There was a bit of bullying but teachers sorted some of it out. Did it well. I just stopped going in, got behind with my work, felt I couldn't catch up. No point in going back in".
Home events which disrupted education were: moving home (12), the family splitting up (6), family trauma (6), pet problems (2), family arguments (2), bereavement (2), arrest (1), hospitalisation (1), drugs and depression (1). The individual student voice presents the complexity and harsher reality behind such causes:
Student: "Mum arranged a counsellor, they were rubbish. She didn't understand. Once me mum knew, the relationship changed, er,…umm,…more protective".(This was after keeping rape a secret for three years)
Student: "My mum used to get drunk, drag me out of bed and hit me because she did not like my friends."
Many of the students' comments echo those recorded by Kinder et al (1997) in "Exclusion: Who needs it?" In particular they reflected those of Kinder's permanent excludees in that they relayed "multi-faceted stories", dominated by a "sense of injustice, rejection and indifference" (page 24) in relation to school.
Pupils with Special Educational Needs
At the start of Stage Two it was established that over thirty students had Educational Psychological Service (EPS) files. The ratio of male to female referrals was 3:1. All the files were requested and carefully examined. In establishing the point at which pupils were first referred to the EPS females revealed a pattern of serious behaviour problems occurring at the key transition stages of Infants to Juniors, Lower Juniors to Upper Juniors and Secondary transfer. Parents appeared to respond to school concerns about their daughters' behaviour by moving schools frequently. Interestingly only one female student was excluded. In this case the mother had also requested a change of school but as the girl was in a Residential School for Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties a re-assessment was instigated instead. Before this was completed the young lady was accused of assaulting a male senior member of staff and permanently excluded.
Male students revealed the same pattern of referral at key transition stages in schooling, with the additional stage of Nursery to Infants. Male students tended to remain in the same Primary school but the pattern of frequent school changes emerged at Secondary level. In contrast to the one female excludee the majority of the male students were permanently excluded. The proportion of students receiving EPS involvement without a Statement was 2:1. This figure includes three students went through Stage 4 but whose Statements were never completed because of one outstanding report.
In examining the pupils' files for the first request by parents for outside agency involvement an interesting alternative pattern emerged. The majority of parents requested help for home based problems when their children were still pre-schoolers. The rest asked for help during the last two years of Primary school or the first two years of Secondary school. Only one family maintained they had no problems at home and that they could cope without the help of outside agencies. When outside agencies became involved the majority of families were classed as "dysfunctional" with a third of the families being viewed as "placing their children at risk".
With a school focussed EPS, once students ceased to attend school, there was a tendency to close the case and assume support would be delivered by other agencies. In the majority of cases this did not happen and a request was made to the Senior Management to review the service actually given to this client group.
Excluded pupils
In the academic year prior to EOTAS being set up thirty-five pupils were permanently excluded in the area. Four pupils were from the Primary sector and thirty-one from the Secondary sector. The secondary pattern of permanent exclusions was as follows:
| Year 7 | Year 8 | Year 9 | Year 10 | Year 11 | total | Stage 4 | Stage 5 |
| 2 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 31 | 2 | 5 |
The termly pattern that emerged was:
| Autumn 1997 | Spring 1998 | Summer 1998 | Total |
| 9 | 14 | 8 | 31 |
As planning for EOTAS became known a further 13 Key Stage 4 pupils were excluded, seven of whom joined EOTAS. Interestingly the authority records of exclusion follow the pattern described by Galloway (1987) with a rise in the Spring Term.
In the Autumn and Spring term 1998-1999 a further 12 Key Stage 4 pupils were permanently excluded and all were put forward for consideration for admission to the Project. Prior to the option of EOTAS being available it was noted that the most difficult pupils to re-admit were pupils in Years 9, 10 and 11 and pupils with special educational needs at Stage 4 of the Code of Practice. Most of these pupils remained out of school for over 6 months with no offer of a school placement.
Views of the 14 permanently excluded pupils who were first on the EOTAS role were sought using individual open-ended interviews. All were willing to discuss their exclusion(s). Interestingly those who were most willing to talk were pupils who had been excluded from Special Schools or were pupils with Statements from 'mainstream schools'. Most of these students saw being at College as "one of the best things that had happened" to them. They found the social, age and academic mix at College allowed them to reframe their sense of self and reflect on how this was bound up with their view of themselves as "learners" and as "people". For them exclusion became a means of "social re-inclusion". (National Children's Bureau 1995, 1999) Comparing the profiles of the EOTAS students with those reported in the "Truancy and School Exclusion Report" by the Social Exclusion Unit (May 1998) the results would confirm that:
- The most excluded pupils are white, male young teenagers
- That pupils with special needs are disproportionately excluded
- That children in care are disproportionately excluded
- That the frequency of exclusion increases with age
- The reasons for exclusion varied greatly from relatively minor incidents to serious criminal offences
- That the same social and family risk factors apply to exclusion as to truancy
On the other hand the result did not reflect a disproportionate exclusion rate of children from the ethnic communities or the tendency for schools in the highest areas of social deprivation to be the highest excluders. Within the LEA school systems' leading up to permanent exclusion varied greatly. Whilst all referring schools could cite a list of serious reasons for permanently excluding some schools also used a tally system which had a 'build-up' element, (Galloway 1985) so that pupils having reached the 15 day temporary exclusion limit were then permanently excluded. This "discipline policy" action would explain why some of the students on the project expressed genuine bewilderment for the reason given for their permanent exclusion when they had "done much worse in the past and just got sent home for a couple of days". A couple of students felt that they were "chucked out" not because of their behaviour, although they admitted it was not particularly good, but because of the results on in-school examinations which predicted that they "didn't stand a chance of getting even one C". The survey conducted by the Society of Education Officers and the Association of Directors of Social Services (1992) alerted the nation to the concern that: "Schools responding to the pressures of league tables and examinations were not always sympathetic to the socially excluded". (Webster, 1999) Recent moves to alter the way "value-added" is calculated in performance tables (DfEE May 1998, September 1998) and the period covered, is one way the Government is attempting to tackle this issue.
Attendance
All involved in EOTAS were interested in attendance, including a significant number of the students themselves and the parents, however the reasons for being interested in attendance varied according to the group. Staff in L10 were concerned to track attendance from the point of view of student welfare and as 'a performance indicator'. College staff were concerned about student welfare, cost-basis analysis and future "potential student predictors". Parents concerns ranged from simply knowing that their children were safe to avoiding prosecution. Students' interests in attendance ranged from wanting to prove that they could attend regularly given the 'right' place and support (Hallam and Roaf 1995, Le Riche 1995) to checking out where other people were, either because they wanted to see them or wanted to avoid them! LEA Officers were concerned to discover whether the EOTAS Project was successful in terms of reducing truancy at a cost-effective price. Attendance was of major importance to other groups including Education Welfare Officers, Juvenile Justice Workers, Social Workers, Police Officers, Child Guidance Workers, Home Tutors and Youth Workers. Alongside concerns about the individual students' welfare, knowing that the student was a regular and predicable attender at the Project had a considerable positive impact on all these peoples' work loads.
In order to explore attendance issues an in-depth register was kept during the Spring Term. Student non-attendance was followed up on a daily basis by phone call. For those students whose families did not have phones, or were cut off, letters were sent. For those students who were temporarily homeless contact was made through their friends on the Project. When issues or circumstances came to light which were a serious cause of concern the individual student's needs and parental situation were discussed and other agencies contacted as appropriate.
By the Spring Term four distinct groups were identifiable.
1. Students attending P Campus and registering there only.
2.
Students attending L10 and also attending courses within the College W Campus.
3. Students attending L10 only for Education and the College facilities for
social integration.
4. Students not attending and being educated under
individually arranged packages.
In looking at attendance for the last three groups the following pattern emerges:
Students attending L10 and College Courses.
Thirty-six
students were attending L10 and vocational college courses. Their mean actual
attendance percentage was 63% and their mean actual attendance plus authorised
non-attendance was 78%. The most popular courses were Vehicle Maintenance (8),
Bricklaying (7) and Catering (6). Three students were enrolled on Hairdressing,
pairs of students chose Construction, Decorating and Electronics, while
individual students were enrolled on Engineering, Art, Child Care and Business
Studies. These students, integrating successfully into College, initially
revealed a fairly typical pattern of reasons for absence, with medical reasons
dominating (11). However, in moving beyond that factor reasons which would be
found in the 'truant profile' (Kahn and Nursten 1964, Clyne 1966, Tyermann
1968,Denney 1974,Galloway 1982, Reid 1985, Reid 1987) began to re-emerge, with
family issues (10), police involvement (3) and taking the role of 'young carer'
within the family dominating (6). Issues that reflect the youth culture of the
last decade of the twentieth century included feuds (1), intimidation (1),
homelessness (2) and drugs (2).
Students working in L10 only.
The 22 most vulnerable students
were making a considerable effort to attend College. Whist able to study in L10
they were either not ready or unable to cope with the demands of vocational
courses. Their mean actual attendance percentage was 46% and the mean actual
attendance plus authorised non-attendance was 50%. Their reasons for
non-attendance showed a more complex pattern, with the issues of 'street life'
dominating. Drugs (7) over-shadowed many of their lives, alongside intimidation
(5), severe family problems (17) and regular involvement with the police and
courts (8). Considering the complexity and chaos of their lives, their
attendance records should be a cause of celebration rather than concern.
Alternative packages
Individual packages were created for
eighteen students. Three were pregnant and two who were phobic and suicidal
were taught at home. Two had not yet begun on the project. Four remained
extreme non-attenders and these were re-referred to the EWS. A fifth student
was also re-referred as a first step after being identified as a drug dealer.
Six pupils chose alternatives to the project. Three, ex-WELG students via the
Youth Service. Two pupils in the 'Looked After System' via Social Services and
one managed to negotiate re-entry to school. Based on these figures EOTAS was
successfully educating ninety-three percent of their students.
Stage Three
The expectation when approaching any piece of research, is that the target project will have a clear identity, socially constructed by the different groups involved, (Berger and Luckman,1992, Miller 1995) but nevertheless, clearly overlapping at key points, for example, the locus, who the staff are, who the students are, and so on.
The frustration and fascination of EOTAS was that this aspect was so nebulous, fixed points were few and in a constant state of change. One of the strengths of the project, but also one of the difficulties for "outsiders looking in" was its dynamic nature and its rapid rate of evolution. Fortunately despite the lack of fixed reference points the research methodology chosen was sufficiently flexible to encompass this constant state of change.
Initially conceived by the LEA Management as an opportunity for approximately twenty Key Stage Four permanently excluded pupils to re-access education for fifteen hours each week, the project rapidly expanded to include almost the whole Key Stage Four population who were "out of school". (Lovey et al 1993). The LEA was genuinely shocked to discover that the numbers that emerged bore no relationship to the "official statistics". In dealing with the larger numbers and the different populations of "excludees" and "persistent non-attenders" the concept of a standard fifteen-hour package was not a viable proposition. In practical terms students were offered individual timetables, taking into account their views and needs, so that timetables could range from five hours to thirty hours.
In hosting the project the College saw the opportunity to fulfil a number of its own objectives including legislative requirements by bringing all under sixteen year olds in College under the same "department".
For the L10 staff the Project was an opportunity to put into practice
lessons learned from working with the most vulnerable and at risk students in
alternative settings..
For the students the project was an opportunity to
re-access education, though, at first, many students saw the situation in a
"lesser of two evils" context, in that it was an escape from something more
negative, including school, distressing home or 'care' situations or boredom.
At the end of the first year students were asked their views on the project,
what they liked, disliked and what they would change for next year. A
seven-point scale was constructed, using the students categorising system,
taking into account Miller's(1995) warning:
The meaning systems of adolescents are different from those of adults, and adult researchers must exercise caution in assuming they have an understanding of adolescent cultures. (Page 10)
Views were gathered from fifty students concerning their overall view of "the education being offered at EOTAS". Ten percent rated it as "ace", twenty-two percent as "Pretty good", twenty-eight percent as "good", twenty percent as "OK" and twenty percent as "not bad". No students viewed it as "bad" or "really bad". A remarkable turn around when the students came from the starting point Grunsell (1979) described "as the end of the line":
They were kids at the end of the line for whom no-one could find any provision with any chance of success. (Page 9)
So what changed? How they were taught changed significantly. "It is a lot better than school. You get one to one help and it's more flexible". Teaching cannot meaningfully be considered apart from the relationship between the teacher and the taught. Effective teaching depends on who is teaching whom and whether they can trust each other. "It was good coming here. I liked the cool atmosphere between the tutors and students". Indeed once students "switched back on to learning" they began to push for more in terms of expectations and taking control of their own learning: "At first it was good, staff were more helpful than at school and there is a better atmosphere, you are more independent. It is reasonable in L10 but what you can learn is restricted, but it's better than nothing. There are other options available which are great".
So what did EOTAS offer them? Without any frills it offered them a "new deal":
Impact
As a result of the action-discussion-reflection-action cycle methodology of illuminative evaluation changes instigated in preparation for the second year of the project included:
The last word should be left to the students:
"I am sorry I never found a school in which I was happy after ten years of education and four schools. My mum was worried about me coming here at first, but now she's glad. They listen to you here. They help you here. I've done things I never thought I could. I now know I can learn like everyone else and I'm not thick. My mum says I've got a future now and she's right".
References
Berger, P. L.& Luckmann, T. (1992). The Social Construction of Reality. First published 1967. The Penguin Press.
Clyne, M.B. (1966). Absent: School Refusal as an Example of Disturbed Family Relationships.London. Tavistock Publications.
Denney, A.H. (1974) .Truancy and School Phobics. London. Priory Press Limited.
Department for Education and Employment. (1998) Changes to Performance Tables Relating to Secondary Schools. London. DfEE.
Department for Education and Employment. (1998). Morris reveals ambitious new plan to cut truancy and exclusion from school. London. DfEE. Circular 368/98.
Galloway, D., Martin, R., Bloomfield, D. and Seyd, R. (1982). Schools and Disruptive Pupils. London. Longman.
Galloway, D. (1985) Schools and Persistent Absentees. Oxford. Pergamon Press.
Galloway, D., Martin, R. and Wilcox, B. (1985). Persistent absence from school and exclusion from school: the predictive power of school and community variables. British Educational Research Journal.11,1. 51-61.
Grunsell,R. (1978). Born to be Invisible. Hampshire and London. McMillan Education Limited.
Hallam, S & Roaf, C (1985). Here Today, Here Tomorrow: Helping Schools to Promote Attendance. London. Calouste Gulbenkien Foundation.
Kahn, J.H. & Nursten, J,P, (1964) Unwillingly to School. Oxford and London. Pergamon Press.
Kinder,K., Wilkin, A. and Wakefield, A. (1997) Exclusion: Who Needs It? NFER.
LeRiche. E. (1995) Combating Truancy in Schools: Listening to the Voice of the Pupils. London. David Fulton Publishers in association with Roehampton Institute.
Lovey,J.,Docking,J. and Evans, R. (1993). Exclusion from School. Provision for Disaffection at Key Stage 4. London. David Fulton Publishers.
Macgregor,A. (1989). The DECP Course: An Illuminative Evaluation. Educational and Child Psychology. 6.4, 82-87.
Miller,P. (1995) Review of Truancy in English Secondary Schools. In D.J. O'Keeffe & P. Stoll. Issues in School Attendance and Truancy. London. Pitman.
Milward,L. (1995) Focus Groups. In G.M.Breakwell & C. Fife-Shaw. Research Methods in Psychology. London. Sage.
Norwich, B. (1998) Research Methods in Educational Psychology: Traditional and New Paradigm. Educational and Child Psychology. 15, 3. 8-14.
Office for Standards in Education. (1993) Access, Achievement and Attendance in Secondary School. Report no. 14/95. London. OFSTED.
Olly,P. (1999). Pupils Feelings about their Education. Unpublished Manuscript. Warrington Education Authority.
Parlett,M. & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as Illumination. University of Edinburgh. Regan, T. (1999). Special Treatment- But No Special Needs? Unpublished Manuscript MSc Educational Psychology. Manchester University.
Reid, H. (1987). Schools and Social Work: Truancy, Exclusion and Special Needs. Social Monograph, 156, Norwich.
Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research. Oxford. Blackwell.
Secondary Heads Association. (1992). Excluded from School: A Survey of Secondary School Suspensions. Bristol. SHA.
Social Exclusion Unit. (1998) Truancy and School Exclusion. Command Paper 3957. The Stationary Office.
The National Children's Bureau. (1995).Championing Children. Report for Manchester City Council.
The National Children's Bureau. (1998). Exclusion from School. Highlight No. 161. London.
Webster, T. (1999). Social Inclusion. Education Journal. March. 28.
 |
 |