London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP): Results from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention to Reduce School Exclusion and Antisocial Behavior

Abstract

School exclusion as a disciplinary measure remains a controversial issue. In spite of numerous attempts to reduce this practice, no solutions with documented effectiveness exist. This article reports results of a cluster-randomized controlled field trial carried out in 36 schools across London. The trial is an independent evaluation of a 12-week-long intervention, Engage in Education-London (EiE-L), delivered by Catch22. The intervention was aimed at students in secondary school who are most at risk of school exclusion. It targeted their social communication and broader social skills with the aim of reducing school exclusions and problem behaviors. The study employed a multi-informant design that included students and teacher reports as well as official records for exclusions and arrests. Data were analyzed through intent-to-treat analyses based on self-reports from 644 students and 685 teacher reports for students who were nominated for the study and for whom data was available at baseline or post-intervention. At baseline data collection the students ranged in age from 12.85 to 15.03, with M = 14.03; 71 % were male and included a number of ethnic minorities, the largest of which was black African/black Caribbean comprising 40 % of the sample. The results suggested a small but statistically significant negative effect on the primary outcome of exclusion and null effects for the secondary outcomes that measured behavioral and socio-emotional outcomes. The study’s findings are discussed in terms of the possible reasons for the null effects and negative (iatrogenic) effect.

What can we do to reduce disciplinary school exclusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…If the final report produced data for the same variables originally proposed to be tested, we concluded there was a low risk of bias (e.g. Bradshaw et al 2012;Lewis et al 2013;Obsuth et al 2016). It is important to mention that many of our included studies were unpublished PhD theses (i.e.…”

“…Exceptionally, the review involved three manuscripts published in 2016. In the first case (Obsuth et al 2016), the registered protocol of the study had been identified in our electronic searches and we were waiting for the final report. Sprague et al (2016) was sent to us, because it included more information than a previous published version of the study published in previous years.…”

“…Some more specific programmes target communication skills (e.g. Obsuth et al 2016) or approaches to reduce stress (e.g. Barnes et al 2003).…”

“…It must be highlighted that some of the included studies in this overall measure reported negative effect sizes, meaning that in some specific cases, the intervention made outcomes worse (e.g. Hawkins et al 1988;Hostetler and Fisher 1997;Obsuth et al 2016). For instance, Hawkins et al (1988) reported the impact of an intervention focused on interactive teaching and co-operative learning targeting low achievers in mainstream schools.…”

Emerging Scholar Best Article Award, 2018

“…The findings demonstrate that, in addition to victimization, subtle forms of exclusion may impede the social integration of immigrant youth. This line of research, along with others that focus on other forms of exclusion including those relating to one's identity (e.g., gender identity, Wernick et al 2017) or one's actions (e.g., exclusions from school, e.g., Obsuth et al 2017) has become one of the most important areas of youth research and policy (see Levesque 2015a, 2017a) of our time.…”