Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The experiences of pupils and parents who have undergone permanent exclusion from schools in England. The study aims to highlight key messages for professional practice, focusing on retaining excluded pupils in mainstream schools and reintegrating them into a new one. The research reveals concerns regarding a lack of understanding of pupils' needs, academic pressures in mainstream schools, and the need for a protective, nurturing environment.
What you will learn
Typology: Exercises
1 / 179
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The content of this thesis relates to the lived experiences of exclusion from the viewpoint of parents' and pupils'.
The structure of the thesis will guide the reader as follows:
The research comprises a number of areas of professional interest:
A number of factors have contributed to my interest in this particular area of research. In my previous career as a primary school teacher, and inclusion manager, in a large junior school I had experience of working with many pupils described as having SEBD (often pupils who had been excluded from previous schools). Due to the caring and inclusive ethos within the school these pupils' needs were met and these pupils had a mostly successful junior school experience. However, having close links with the local secondary school, it was always saddening to hear that these pupils did not always have the same success at secondary school. This led me to question how these pupils could function well within a junior school setting but not so within the secondary school.
More recently, since undergoing doctorate training as an educational psychologist, I have become increasingly interested in working alongside secondary schools in improving their support for pupils who are at risk from, or have been previously excluded. I have also become increasingly interested in how we can successfully engage parents of pupils who are described as having SEBD, as in my work I have often felt that these parents were marginalised compared with parents of children with other Special Educational Needs (SEN).
This is also a relevant area to address in the local authority in which I work as the procedures and provision for permanently excluded pupils are undergoing major changes. The key stage three PRU in which this research was undertaken is undergoing many changes, one of which is to become a 'short stay school'. Consequently, the staff will have more of a role in preparing both pupils and new schools for the reintegration. The aim of this research was to explore how listening to and understanding the parents' and pupils' experiences of exclusion may help professionals to reflect on how best to support excluded pupils in their reintegration back into school.
This study recognises that the perspectives, experiences and position of the researcher are a crucial element of the research. As a trained teacher and trainee educational psychologist, with experience of working with pupils who have been excluded and their families, this research touches upon important aspects of both my personal and professional life. An interpretative research method was, therefore, selected for this study. Based on Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), an interpretative account of the experiences of parents' and their children were explored. Semi structured interviews were employed to generate shared understandings. Themes arising from these interpretative accounts were shared with a group of professionals working at the PRU in a focus group in order to gain further insight into their experiences and perceptions.
Who is most likely to be excluded?
2007/2008 data shows that the permanent exclusion rate for boys was three and a half times higher than that for girls, this ratio has remained stable for the past five years with boys representing approximately 78% of the total number of permanent exclusions in England. Data shows that the most common point for both sexes to be excluded is at ages 13-14; approximately 52% of all permanent exclusions were of pupils of this age.
Statistics show that pupils with SEN (both with and without statements) are over eight times more likely to be permanently excluded than pupils with no SEN. In 2007/08, 33 in every 10,000 pupils with statements of SEN and 38 in every 10,000 pupils with SEN without statements were permanently excluded from school. This compares with 4 in every 10,000 pupils with no SEN.
OFSTED (1996) produced a list of risk factors associated with disruption and leading to exclusion. These were:
However, Parsons (1999) believes that an overemphasis on locating the causes and solutions of exclusion at the child or family level leads to neglect of the evidence for causes located at the policy and institutional level. Therefore,
there is also a need to look closely at the school environment in which the pupil is situated.
Section two - What leads to schools excluding pupils?
Harris et al (2006) state that pupils identified as having 'social emotional problems' or being 'disaffected' pose a significant challenge to schools having an inclusive education system. In 2007/08 (DCSF, 2009a) the most common reason for exclusion (both permanent and fixed period) was persistent disruptive behaviour. 11 per cent of permanent exclusions were due to physical assault against an adult.
Some attempts have been made to consider children's problems in school from a systems perspective (Sutoris, 2000). Dowling and Osborne (1985) state that a 'systems' way of thinking refers to a view of individual behaviour which takes account of the context in which it occurs. Therefore, the behaviour of one part of the system is seen as affecting and being affected by, the behaviour of another part. This implies a circular causality as opposed to a linear model which looks for causes in order to explain effects (for example, the medical model). General systems theory, proposed by Von Bertalanffy (1968), asserts that all living systems are maintained through the interaction of their constituent parts. He believed that an understanding of the system could be gained by looking at the 'transactional processes' between different parts of the system. Reed and Palmer (1972) state that, in order to survive and grow, an open system depends upon the exchange of energy, people, materials and information with its environment. Sutoris (2000) believes that pupils and schools can be seen as open systems.
De Pear (1995) stressed the importance of considering the effect of the context (the systems within school) on the pupil, as well as difficulties within the pupil's personal situation. Cole (1998, p115) suggests that, 'school organisational style and resulting ethos can contribute to the creation of behaviour problems'. Mayer (2001) looked at organisational characteristics that contribute to constructions of an aversive school environment,
a school is a factor that can be used to judge the ethos of the school. Pupils who show challenging behaviour are a difficulty for teachers during such inspections as poor pupil behaviour and persistent disruption from a minority of pupils can have a damaging effect on the overall judgements made about a school. In addition, exclusion data can be important to consider when looking at the performance of a school as it provides hard evidence that shows how a school deals with its most challenging pupils.
The second dilemma identified by Cooper et al (2000) is the tension between responsibility for student well-being and responsibility for staff well-being. An effect of the increased focus on standards is that there has been an associated workload burden on teachers (Muschamp et ai, 1992). This has in turn decreased the amount of time teachers have to devote to pastoral issues. Searle (1996) believes that,
Time and energy previously devoted to young people's welfare, which might 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. (Searle, 1996 p.4S)
Pye (1988) also notes that teachers worry about controlling large classes and as a result become stressed and insecure. He believes this insecurity leads to less effective interaction with the pupils. This insecurity may be intensified further if teachers have to deal with pupils with particularly challenging behaviour within a large class. Ramvi (2010) believes that the role of teacher demands considerable personal investment, and that a teacher's self-image is highly dependent on their relationship with pupils. Ramvi suggests that there are often parallel processes of transference- countertransference between teachers and pupils with regard to anxiety. If teachers are not attuned to recognising anxiety in themselves and pupils, then they will not be able to offer containment for the pupil and may behave in a punishing manner, possibly leading to a complete breakdown of relationship between the teacher and pupil.
The revised OFSTED evaluation schedule for schools (OFSTED, 2011) has more of a focus on pupils' emotional health and well-being in all areas of judgements than previous schedules. This will hopefully bring the pastoral care of pupils to the forefront of education rather than being an 'add on' that is secondary to levels of attainment. It will be interesting to see what effect this shift has in the future on improving relationships between teachers and the more vulnerable children.
The third dilemma identified by cooper et al (2000) is the issue between the need for pupil correction and the need for pupil understanding. OFSTED (1996) advises on what good behaviour policies should incorporate - implications set out in clear language, clear expectations for staff and students, clearly stated sanctions and rewards, consistent implementation by all staff and an agreement that it is seen and supported by parents. However, Lloyd-Smith and Dwyfor Davies (1995) argue that if there is a tendency to focus on the mechanisms of managing behaviour (policies, sanctions), this may distract attention from the more vulnerable pupils whose needs and circumstances are diverse, leaving teachers with a poor understanding of these pupils.
Jull (2008) makes a comparison between pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties and children with learning difficulties. She makes the interesting point that for pupils with emotional and behaviour difficulties, the externalisation of their difficulties (antisocial or disruptive behaviour) leads them to be at risk of punitive measures or even exclusion because their behaviour weakens the positive, safe school environment that the teachers are trying to create. In comparison, children with a specific learning difficulty, who experience repeated difficulty with reading would not be punished but would have a systematic assessment of their needs, which would lead to a modified Individual Education Programme (IEP). This highlights that for pupils who experience social and emotional problems the focus can often be on correcting the externalising behaviours through punitive measures, rather than understanding the pupil and attempting to find ways to meet their needs.
Parsons (2005) believes that another problem is society's willingness to reject
Section three - Pupils' experiences of exclusion - what are their views on the factors that influence them to behave in a way that leads to exclusion?
Why is it important to find out pupils' views?
The United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), endorsed by the UK government in 1991, outlined a number of important rights for children, and the updated Special Educational Needs Code of practice (DfES, 2001: 3.1, 3.6, 3.9) has a whole chapter dedicated to the participation of pupils with SEN in procedures and practices used to address their needs.
According to Fielding and Bragg (2003), the benefits to pupils of such involvement are:
De Pear and Garner (1996) state that the approach of gaining the views of pupils who have been excluded has been absent in much of the literature and the information gap has been frequently noted. Davies (2005) also highlights that there have been many studies about mainstream children's voice but relatively few specifically about or with pupils described as having SEBD. Wyness (2006) believes that opportunities for pupil empowerment are often compromised within existing systems that are determined by adults. Davies (2005) believes that these difficulties are magnified in institutions for pupils described as having SEBD; as such provision is centred on firm boundaries, and systematic structures and routines that are controlled by adults. Lewis and Burman (2008) also believe that many mainstream teachers overtly or covertly resist attempts at pupil empowerment as they are uncertain about allowing power and control to be given to pupils. Again, these concerns will be
exacerbated when teachers are working with pupils who exhibit challenging behaviour that is difficult to manage (Sellman, 2009). Therefore, for pupils who are at risk of permanent exclusion or who have been excluded and are being educated in a separate unit, it seems unlikely that their voices will be heard. Cooper (2006) makes the case that it is important for all pupils views to be heard, especially those described as having SEBD, as it is their entitlement and because they have important things to say about the appropriateness of the curriculum and the effectiveness of different teaching styles. In addition, the little research that has been undertaken on the perspectives of this group suggests they easily reproduce the dominant cultural voice that their difficulties are innate and perhaps, even beyond their control (Cooper and Shea, 1998). This is a misconception that needs to be explored. Sellman (2009) believes that if these pupils are given a chance, they could be very articulate about their experiences and raise a number of critical issues and questions relevant to a school's practice. Wise (2000) hoped that her research into the unique views of pupils described as having SEBD would offer readers an opportunity to better understand and increase their respect for these pupils. Her hope was that such an understanding may lead to more appropriate and successful support in schools.
Pupil's views of their exclusion
Hayden and Dunne (2001) asked pupils how they felt about being excluded, their feelings varied, but the most common feelings were anger or sadness. They found that a pupil's feelings about being excluded depended to a large extent on whether they perceived the exclusion to be fair.
Kinder et al (1996) found that the pupils themselves identified the following factors, related to school context, as a cause for their disruption (in rank order);
becomes the study of the way in which the individual himself understands what he is doing and how he feels about it'.
Wise (2000) suggests that pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties may have a heightened sense of injustice and may respond quickly to any indication that they are being treated differently to others. Wise believes that this acute awareness to unfairness may be a result of them already feeling insecure and different and being mistrustful of adults as a result of prior experiences. In a phenomenological sense this would be described as a pupils 'natural attitude' (Husserl, 1936); that the pupils have preconceptions about the situation and the teachers concerned and may anticipate particular outcomes.
Wise (2000) also found that consistency in approach was important for pupils; she described how some pupils were told off for not handing in their homework but noticed that other pupils were not told off for the same offence. Skiba and Peterson (2000) believe that inconsistent and overly harsh disciplinary procedures are not only ineffective in the short term but do little to address the long term problem of negative behavioural routes, and may even contribute to the perpetuation and escalation of future behaviour problems.
Significant relationships
Munn et al (2000) found that pupils were consistent in describing 'bad' teachers as those who shouted and threatened, and 'good' teachers as those who had good interpersonal relations, who listened and talked to them, who took time to explain work and who were strict (but only in relation to work, not disciplinary systems). Five pupils in this study also spoke about how they had enjoyed primary school more than secondary because of the better relationship they had had with the teachers there. Research has shown the importance of the role of teacher-pupil relationships in fostering attachment to school and academic success (Cooper, 2006, Smith 2006). Maintaining teacher-pupil relationships may be even more important for pupils who display emotional and behavioural difficulties. Wise (2000) found that a number of pupils in her study emphasised the importance of positive relationships with one particular
teacher or other adult in the school. Wise believed the essence of a successful and supportive relationship in the school was one that involved an offer of time and the chance to talk on an individual basis. She found that the pupils she interviewed simply wanted their teachers to listen to them and get to know them better. Harris et al (2006) investigated the narratives of pupils who after a permanent exclusion had transferred to a new school to make a fresh start. These pupils pointed to the importance of them being welcomed and treated with care and respect by staff at their new school. These pupils felt special and valued by certain teachers at their new school as a result of interventions to integrate them successfully into the school. Harris et al state that these interventions addressed a need for individual attention and care. According to Rogers (1983), it is this positive regard and care from significant others which enables a pupil to develop a healthy self-regard. For these pupils knowing that someone thinks they matter makes a real difference.
The academic learning environment The link between learning difficulties and behaviour problems is widely accepted (OfEE, 1999) although it is often difficult to unpick the extent to which one is affecting the other. Harris et al (2006) found that ten out of fourteen of the pupils they interviewed experienced difficulties accessing the curriculum and that these difficulties contributed to their feeling of disaffection. They found that pupils' comments suggested that even if a learning difficulty wasn't the primary contributor to behaviour problems, it was important to them that their academic progress was supported. Castle and Parsons (1997) believe that pupils' self-esteem is linked to their success and that repeated failure is demoralising. They suggest that pupils may prefer to hide this behind a fac;ade of disruption.
Behaviour policies - rules, sanctions and rewards Williamson and Cullingford (2003) found that one of the most common themes to emerge from pupils was a dislike of school rules and the ways in which they were enforced. Many pupils felt that some rules were 'petty' or inappropriate. Cullingford (1999) found that a number of male students found the ways in which teachers demonstrate their authority too
Research suggests that independence and individuality is central to a sense of well-being and adjustment for young people (Magen, 1998, Glatzer, 2000), however, the educational environment for some pupils does not seem to match their developmental needs and self-image (Eccles et ai, 1993). Therefore, for some pupils, not feeling valued as an individual may lead to unhappiness in school and the potential to externalise this feeling by displaying challenging behaviour.
Effects of exclusion on pupils
Exclusion may solve the 'problem' for the school, but what are the consequences for the excluded pupils? John (1996) found that excluded pupils had low self-esteem, even though many of them presented a front of self-confidence or even arrogance. People with low self-esteem find it difficult to attempt new ways of behaving; they will continue to display unhelpful patterns of behaviour, in order to behave in a way which is consistent with their poor self-image (Maines and Robinson, 1998). This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with adults responding to the negative behaviour, rather than the pupil's need. The pupil will then internalise the negative messages people around are giving them and continue to believe that they are of no value (Mearns and Thorn, 1988). This is important for pupils labelled as 'disruptive' or 'antisocial' because they do not appear to feel valued by significant adults in school, therefore feeling a lack of respect and then consequently behaving in a challenging manner will only reinforce their low self-esteem. Research into resilience promoting classrooms has shown that, conversely, students with a sense of belonging and community are more likely to develop and engage in pro- social behaviours, and to have a sense of competence (Battistisch et ai, 1997). Cefai (2007) believes this process takes places because of the satisfaction of pupils' basic psychological needs, namely, caring relationships, meaningful participation, high expectations and shared norms.
Cooper (2006) believes that another consequence of exclusion is further hindrance to already poor educational progress. Other, more long term
consequences are pupils being put at risk of being involved in criminal offences, or being put in danger, such as through prostitution (Parsons et ai, 1994, Stirling, 1992).
Section four - Parents' experiences of exclusion
The importance of gaining parents' views
Most research on the subject of exclusion from mainstream schools has focused on the excluding school or excluded pupil. However, the consequences of exclusion extend beyond these immediate experiences. McDonald and Thomas (2003) believe the experience of parents is essential as they are partners in the process, however, their story is often either not told or not heard. Lucyshyn et al (2002) state that the voices of parents often remain unheard, despite the fact that they are seen as playing a valuable role as their child's most important teacher. Brantlinger et al (2005) also note that a missing voice when trying to understand children with challenging behaviours and the experience of their families is the voice of the family connected to the child. Osher, Quinn and Hanley (2002) also found that schools have difficulties in supporting involvement of parents of children described as having SEBD. Therefore, parents' involvement in the process and consequent views on their experiences of exclusion are important in helping schools to consider their practices and procedures around exclusion.
Parents' views of the reasons underlying their child's exclusion
Hayden and Dunne (2001, p.25) explored parents' perceptions of the reasons that might underlie their child's exclusion. When looking at reasons related to the school, they found the following reasons were cited (in rank order):
