Abstract
The steadily increasing problem of exclusions of children from primary and first year secondary school demands a rapid and co-ordinated response if children and adolescents are to avoid the social exclusion that stems from earlier problems such as school exclusion. This project describes an innovative initiative between Social Services, Health and Education in two catchment areas, in which multidisciplinary services have been set up in order to support children excluded from school and from the society.
Over the three years of the project, a multi disciplinary home and school based intervention will be compared to 'standard care' for excluded children. On admission to the study, children (aged 4-12 years) will be randomised to either standard care only or to standard care plus the treatment care. A 12 weeks follow-up (post-treatment) and a final 6 months follow-up (long-term follow-up) will follow the initial assessment. The main hypotheses of the study are:
Standardised measures are used to gather data associated with emotional and behavioural problems and the general well being of the children and their families included in the study. A wide variety of other data such as the socio-economic status of the family is also being gathered using specifically designed measures. To reduce possible influences on the results, the assessors are "blind" to the randomisation process.
Literature
The problem of exclusion has reached a point of crisis in recent years. It is not known precisely how many children do not attend school because of exclusion but each year at least 100,000 children are temporarily excluded. In the academic year 1995/96 the DfEE recorded 12,476 permanent exclusions. Figures collected by independent research (Parsons, 1996a) recorded a higher figure of 13,581 representing a rise of 450% over the last 5 years. Even though the number of permanent exclusions is small in comparison to the overall school population it has risen rapidly in recent years.
In the last ten years in particular, we have seen an additional increase in the numbers of permanently excluded pupils in primary schools. According to present figures on permanent exclusions from primary, secondary and special schools in England during 1996/97, 12,700 children were excluded (Social Inclusion, Pupil Support, 1999,DfEE, page, 13). Among these, 12% were for pupils permanently excluded from primary schools (News, DfEE, 1998). Seven per cent of primary schools reported at least one permanent exclusion in 1996/97 (DfEE, News, 1998). Additional to the above figures, is a further hidden figure of children who are informally excluded; these are the children who are sent home from school or their parents are asked to withdraw them for brief periods, as a form of punishment or for a "cooling off" period. These 'unofficial' exclusions are not usually recorded in school statistics.
Although it is obvious that the number of permanent exclusions in primary school is small in comparison with the overall number of exclusions (1,600 out of 13,000), it can not be denied that these figures are significant enough to demand better policy and planning concerning this problem.
According to Parsons (1994):
" …primary children excluded from school not only lose an average 75% of a year's schooling but a revealing costing exercise demonstrate that the combined costs to educational, social services, NHS and sometimes Police are substantially more than the resources required to support and maintain the child in school".
Exclusion is not, however, a new phenomenon; evidence suggest that officially recorded primary school exclusion was almost unheard of until the1990's. Lack of research on primary age children and also lack of systematic integration of the excluded children into the educational network, consistute sound reasons for research investigation.
Reasons for Exclusion
It would be appropriate to present in the next paragraphs the reasons due to, a child gets excluded firstly from his/her school and then from their society if the remain too long out of the mainstream education. Looking through the existing reports we have about the causes of the increased numbers of pupils excluded from school we can divide the reasons for exclusion into three main categories: a) emotional and behavioural problems, b) family and social problems and c) stretched educational resources.
a) Emotional and behavioural problems
The most common reasons for exclusion, related to emotional and behavioural problems, in research conducted since the 1990's are summarised in the following table: Table1. Summary of reason offered by schools for exclusions (%).
| Violence to other pupils (bullying, fighting and assault on peers) | 30.1% |
| Disruption misconduct and unacceptable behaviour | 17.0% |
| Verbal abuse to peers | 14.9% |
| Verbal abuse to staff | 12.0% |
| Criminal offences, usually theft or substance abuse | 11.9% |
| Physical abuse to staff | 1.2% |
Truancy and school exclusion. Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, 1998, page, 10.
Regarding the above table physical aggression to other pupils has been a significant factor leading to exclusion. National Exclusion Reporting System found this to be a factor in over a quarter of cases and Imich (1994), in nearly a third of cases. Disruption and behaviour tend to be the next most common reason, followed by verbal abuse to peers and also to staff. In a minority of cases physical abuse and assault on staff have been shown to feature in cases of exclusion. It seems that some of this aggression towards staff was the result of staff intervention in a situation, such as an attempt to prevent further attack on another child. Fixed-term exclusion was imposed in these cases.
On the one hand, Blyth and Milner (1993) have raised the issue that such reasons are recorded as causes because they are, by definition, the official reasons provided by the Headteachers. However, they suggest that in reality the formal reason given for exclusion is likely to represent "the last straw" after a long period of difficult relationships and incidents within a school (page, 19). There will, therefore, have been a period of escalating difficulties and it probably unusual for a child without such a history, to be excluded.
In addition to investigating the school environment we need to target our attention on other significant influences in the social environment, which would include the family.
b) Family and social problems
As was mentioned at the beginning of this section, family and social problems consistute another significant factor which links social dislocation, poverty and difficulties at school, including the experience of exclusion. The significance of the family on the development of children is well known, and it is necessary to view difficult behaviours in school within a wider perspective. There has been an increase in poverty and in family breakdown in recent years. The number of children in poor families has increased. There are 1.3 million lone parents caring for 2.2 million children (OPGS, 1995, The Health of Our Children, the office of Population and Census Studies). Evidence from studies show the links between exclusion and factors such as poverty (Cohen at al, 1994) and socio-economic circumstances (Nottingham County Council, 1989). The effect of these disadvantaged home circumstances on a child's school performance can be disruptive, costly and even destructive.
In Hayden's study (1996) 75% of the families were involved with agencies such as social services, child and family guidance, educational, social and psychiatric services. In the same study the majority of the children excluded from school were viewed as having Special Education Needs, their home circumstances were frequently disruptive and unsupportive, and their peer group interactions were often negative. Under these conditions they were unable to achieve effectiveness in schoolwork. They were described as having low self-esteem and as avoiding possible failure by not trying with their schoolwork.
Another research study based in Sheffield schools (Galloway et al, 1982) showed that most suspended pupils came from the most disadvantaged families in the school: 40% of suspended pupils came from families with separated or divorced parents, and 22% had been dependent upon social security or similar benefits during the 12 months of the study. Recent evidence from the USA suggests that children's mental health and behaviour is determined by economic experience and where they live. McLeod and Edwards (1995) through using the 1988 National Longitudinal Study of Youth data set found that family poverty and residential characteristics predict children's mental state. Earlier in 1993 McLeod and Shanahan using the 1986 National longitudinal Study of Youth data set, found that length of time in poverty was an important predictor of children's mental condition. As the length of time in poverty increases feelings of unhappiness, anxiety and dependence occurred more regularly. They studied the relationship between parenting behaviours and children's mental health as well. According to the above findings Parenting practices such as physical punishment and harsh discipline appear to occur more frequently in poor families and have a significant effect on children's mental health.
The significant influence of the family environment on the pupil's school performance has also been indicated by Rutter (1991) who refers to the great range of contributing social factors (e.g. increasing relative poverty, unemployment and family breakdown) which are likely to affect more children adversely at the present time than in the recent past. He believes that the greatest chance of a positive change for these individuals relates to improvement in family circumstances, peer group relationships and those with significant others and good school experiences.
The final factor, which contributes to the increased level of exclusion, is the lack of educational resource particularly in some localities. OFSTED reported that:
Educational arrangements for excluded pupils are very unsatisfactory. OFSTED hopes that, as the White Paper "choice and diversity" indicates, the DfEE will place a duty on LEAs to secure "education otherwise" for excluded pupils.
(OFSTED, 1993C,para.10)
The person most closely associated with the pupil is the class teacher, and the evidence shows that only the teachers with the most highly developed classroom management skills can survive the task of managing the experience comfortably. Teachers are faced with larger classes, and a limited and demanding National Curriculum. They have to ration their resources of time, care and attention that they can give to the most demanding children (Permanent exclusions from schools in England in the 1990's, p.183). Teachers are at the heart of any attempt to reduce disaffection. A good teacher can make all the difference between a pupil becoming disengaged with the school and staying within the mainstream. However, certain teachers' perceptions of some pupils and groups of pupils, and vice versa, can compound disaffection. One witness noted that some pupils drop out of school in itself but "because of one or two teachers"(House of Commons, 1998).
Rollinson (1990) points out that the majority of teachers have not been equipped during their training to deal with the behaviours they are occasionally faced with, largely because serious problems are relatively rare in mainstream school. Other statements1 show that few teachers had received adequate training in behaviour management, as many were unsure of the distinction between poor behaviour and disturbed behaviour. Referral to special services was often too late because the services lacked the resources to cope with serious and enduring problems.
LEAs' resources are so stretched by their statutory duty to provide education out of school, that they give insufficient attention to reducing exclusions. In other words, there is very little 'primary' or 'secondary' prevention. The phenomenon of preventing exclusion within the school is rare, as schools do not spend the necessary time in order to avoid using exclusion as the final sanction. In addition to that, inspectors blame poor teaching for rise in expulsions (Lightfoot, Electronic Telegraph, 1996). According to this statement, inspectors believe that "poor teaching and lack of classroom control are the factors leading some schools to expel record number of pupils". A total of 11,084 pupils were excluded in year 1996 and schools inspectors believed that teacher could do more to contain them. Chris Woodhead, the chief inspector, said the survey by Ofsted showed that schools in similar circumstances differed widely in their ability to cope with disruptive pupil. On the other hand, where schools are acting as small businesses in order to gain a better position in 'League Tables' they experience the tension between business ethics and professional ethics; the former forces them to organise their enterprise so that it is optimally effective and efficient and this may mean removing obstacles to those goals, and factors likely to lower its standing such as behaviourally difficult pupils. Instead of this school should endeavour to create additional support units at the school for pupils who might otherwise face exclusion. The introduction of 'League Tables', the increasing importance of the school image and the reluctance of Headteachers and governing bodies to admit or retain pupils who might have a detrimental impact on school image and measured performance, are cited as major contributors to the increasing level of exclusion (BBC 1993, NUT 92, Stirling 92, The economics of education & childhood, p.298). The emergence of the education market has also been recognised as contributing to a reduced willingness on the part of Headteachers to cope with 'difficult pupils': ''Heads who had previously been sympathetic to offering extra support to difficult and underachieving pupils were now seeing them as a liability. They were looking for ways of transferring them to other schools or units'' (Stirling, 1992b, p.128). Paradoxically, the professional ethic urges the school to maintain its service to all pupils no matter what difficulties they have or present to the staff (Children & Society, Vol.10, 177-86,1996). The idea of gaining a better position in the 'League Tables' creates a direct pressure on teachers. This happens, as teachers need to provide as better results as they can, according to their school's policy. The fact that the training of teachers in behaviour management is still very limited forces them either ignoring such problematic cases or excluding these pupils because they need to focus on the rest of the classroom. Because of this lack of training, time and energy previously devoted to young people's welfare, which might before have made a significant difference in turning around disaffected behaviour or changing negative attitudes and therefore have prevented conduct leading to exclusion is being usurped and lost at a time when it is needed more than ever. As for the children, the effect of the business ethic is, perhaps, an obstacle for the normal functioning of the school as they need more attention and time from the majority of the staff, as they do not have the training to offer such a support.
Even in special schools for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties recent research by Cooper, Smith and Upton (1990) shows that the lack of opportunity for professional development and training is an experience shared by teachers (Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties).
It is particularly important that people working with youngsters who appear to have emotional and behavioural needs should develop a theoretical framework, which helps them respond to these kind of behaviour not by instinct alone but through the application of a broader treatment strategy to a specific situation. The following figure (Hayden, 1997) attempts to sum up the factors effecting primary school exclusions:
Figure1.common variables in the characteristics and circumstances of primary age children excluded from school.
Alternative provision for excluded children.
As it was shown in the previous section the schools lack either of training or support from their own resources. So, it becomes obvious that, firstly school need support from agencies outside the education system for pupils whose behaviour can not be managed in the classroom and secondly, because some children may come from trouble families where their parents need support if they are to fulfil the necessary task of supporting their children's education. The following schemes are some of the available alternative provisions for those kids and their families.
· Home Tuition
The most common form of compensatory
provision is home tuition. Over 50% of local educational authorities responding
in a study conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research (R,
Knight, 1995) included this as one of the facilities available. Often Home
Tuition is used to meet the immediate loss of schooling, pending a decision
about the best, permanent alternative to the host school. As a rule, home
tuition is not continuously available through the week but is offered for a
limited number of hours, perhaps on a number of half days in the week.
Essentially, LEA employ teachers in a peripatetic capacity, their academic
skills and specialisms relating in the main to core subjects. More common is
the establishment of a group of teachers variously described as either an
exclusion support team, a student support service, or an education team. The
teacher members of teams may be employed on a permanent basis or as supply
teachers. The student are either excluded pupils who are undergoing review or
assessment or for other reasons i.e. medical. Home tuition is carried out
primarily at home, although where home circumstances make this difficult, LEAs
may use other locations such as children's homes or referral units (which will
be considered later).
· Pupil Referral Unit
A PRU is a school, which is
established and maintained by a LEA, and which is specially organised to
provide education for children described in section 19 (1) of the 1994 Act.
However a PRU is not a mainstream or special school. PRUs are legally a type of
school, but because of their size, their rapidly changing role and the type of
pupils they receive, it is impracticable to apply to these units the full range
of legislative requirement that apply to mainstream and special school. The key
differences cover the curriculum offered in PRUs, accommodation requirements,
dual registration of pupils in PRUs and school, and the relative duties of
LEAs, teachers in charge, and the management of the unit (Draft guidance,
Social Inclusion -Pupil Support, p.79, 1999).
· Support Teams
Their titles vary as the degree of the
specific tasks and target audience also varies. The structure of such team is
the following:
- LEA support teams consist of teachers with both mainstream
and SEN experience
- Multidisciplinary teams, including Special Educational
Needs teachers, mainstream teachers, Educational psychologists, Educational
Welfare Officers Social Worker and careers officers.
- Teams led
particularly by Social Services Department, linked to educational staff.
Such teams have to meet different priorities and so there are a variety
of formats for their work:
- Teams that cater for pupils of all ages.
-
Teams that concentrate on pupils from years 10&11.
- Teams that have a
strong INSET role.
- Teams whose function is geared above all to the
support of children in mainstream schools.
- Teams that are primarily
responsible for permanently excluded pupils whose needs can only be met by
'education otherwise'.
- Teams whose remit is predominantly the provision
of tuition.
- Teams where counselling and extensive home liaison is given a
high profile.
- Teams where the advisory function has been so developed as
to support other agencies, such as Social Services, who may have prime
responsibility for certain pupils.
· SEN assessments
In some LEAs SEN assessments are often an appropriate provision for excluded pupils. In those cases, pupils are assessed through the normal process, using the services of the educational psychologist.
· Family Support Services
The aims of the FSS are most often expressed in cognitive developmental,
rather than behavioural terms. The staff team comprises a project leader, 3 or
more project workers, a similar number of sessional workers running group
activities or clubs, and parent helpers who may engage in direct work with
children. The activities offered may include any or all of the following:
-
A daily playgroup for the under fives, in which parents are encouraged to
become involved.
- A twice weekly social club for school age children
-
A small group, meeting 2-3 times weekly, having individualised activities for
children presenting a variety of problems.
- Activities on a daily basis
for children during school holidays.
- A daily drop-in group for parents,
providing the opportunity to discuss problems with a professional and possibly
to engage in a parenting skills programme.
- A weekly parents' support
group.
- Home visits to individual families where requested (Hayden, p.142).
All the above schemes which have been described through either research projects on exclusion or governmental efforts to tackle the issue of exclusion (Parsons; 1994, Hayden; 1997, Blith; 1995) vary heavily in either practice due to the ideas, experience, funds and needs that each authority has.
The actual Study
As it was mentioned above through this study it will be examined the impact of primary school exclusion which it has not been investigated in depth so far. Thus, a clinical team was set up in a Greater Manchester borough. The focus of the team is to reduce the days of exclusion and increase at the same time school attendance of those pupils. Areas of investigation are mainly: the child as an individual; the family environment relating to the child's behavioural condition; and the support network around those pupils who appear to have a problematic and disruptive behaviour either at home or at school. The Team of the Home and School Support Project (HASSP) is consisted of Educational Social Workers, Educational Psychologists, a Nurse therapist and a Play therapist. The role of each member of the team is as follows:
The main aims of that multidisciplinary team will be met through the following objectives:
The above Team, in order to be successful in accomplishing the aforementioned aims, uses a range of interventions, which are applied after the initial assessment that involves the pupils, the school, the family and other professionals involved. The intervention is eclectic, flexible and wide-ranging and has been tailored to suit individual needs. Following this assessment the HASSP team makes a decision about the need for intervention, and what form this should take. The 'package' of intervention can include one of the following approaches:
Although at the outset of the project the aim was for the team to offer short term intervention over a twelve week period is was recognised that it would be more useful for each case to have its own time limits according to the complexity of the case.
Conclusions
Even though the study has not been completed it can be said, with care, at this stage that a multidisciplinary approach seems better than an individual intervention as the collaboration of three services, such as Health, Education and Social Services give a broader view of the problem and a better assessment of the individual needs. However, it has to be mentioned that one of the main difficulties of the study is the variety of the cases in our sample as it includes a wide range of subjects such as children coming from very poor or disturbed families to middle class and supporting families, and that fact will make even more difficult the generalisation of the outcome. Thus, the application of this multidisciplinary intervention needs to take into consideration the complexity of each case. Without any doubt the phenomenon of school exclusion is a complicated problem as it involves not only the child but also the family and the school. So, it becomes clear that if there is a dysfunction in one the above systems then it may cause a general problem in the whole network between family, child and school. The author's view is that the problem should be discovered and prevented in its first steps (primary sector). Therefore, it is up to the efforts of all the involved agencies, families and researchers, to work out what is the best solution for tackling the phenomenon of school and social exclusion. The start has been done.
References
 |
 |