What happens to pupils permanently excluded from special schools and pupil referral units in England?

Abstract

There is widespread consensus in the research and policy-related literature over the last decade that young people who have been permanently excluded from school are at a far greater risk of a variety of negative outcomes than young people who have not had this experience. These negative outcomes include prolonged periods out of education and/or employment; poor mental and physical health; involvement in crime; and homelessness. This article presents evidence from a small-scale qualitative study of destinations and outcomes post-exclusion for a group of young people considered to be at particular risk of such negative outcomes: namely, those who have been permanently excluded from special schools or pupil referral units (now known as short-stay schools). The specific focus of this paper is on the 24 young people's educational trajectories pre-and post-exclusion; the reasons for their exclusion from school; and on what forms of alternative provision were available to them after their permanent exclusion.

Students’ Perceptions of Schooling: The Path to Alternate Education

“…Participants experienced schooling as meaningless and disengaging as they struggled to meet the expectations of multiple educators across multiple settings. Consistent with the literature, participants emphasized that the key to adjusting to these changes was a supportive and consistent peer group (Pirrie et al, 2009), within a positive environment.…”

“…Furthermore, suspensions have led to lengthy absences with the onus on the family to find accommodations (Carroll, 2008;Pirrie et al, 2009;Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Consistent with this research, these participants were excluded from the disciplinary and educational decisions that impacted them, and the reasons underlying their behaviours were not considered or were given little weight.…”

“…However, the use of these policies has been controversial (Dinkes, Cataldi, Kena, Baum, & Snyder, 2006;Fenning et al, 2012) for resulting in school exclusion, with the excluded youth often coming from disadvantaged backgrounds (Bear, 2012;Carroll, 2008). Indeed, participants' aggressions did not involve weapons or drugs, yet they were suspended or expelled with no interim services, as has been reported in other studies (Pirrie et al, 2009;Pirrie, Macleod, Cullen, & McCluskey, 2011). Throughout their schooling, these participants were suspended for fighting, and four were ultimately expelled pending placement in an alternate program, despite being deemed safe enough to return to a mainstream school setting.…”

Hard to reach and hard to teach: supporting the self-regulation of learning in an alternative provision secondary school

“…In the words of Cook (2005) these are the "…the hard to reach, hard to teach, most alienated, most vulnerable and those at the end of the line -for whom nothing has worked so far" (p. 90). They include, but are not limited to, children who have been excluded from mainstream schools, children who refuse to attend mainstream school and cases where the child or their family has been in dispute with the school (Cook, 2005;DfE, 2013;Thompson & Russell, 2009;Pirrie et al, 2011). School exclusions are associated with a number of negative long-term outcomes including poverty, social exclusion, involvement in crime, poor mental and physical health, and increased substance use and abuse (e.g., Berridge et al, 2001;Coles et al, 2002;Daniels et al, 2003;MacDonald, 2007).…”

“…These schools are similar to Charter schools in the United States and Canada. Under this arrangement, free schools can focus on proving alternative, rather than mainstream, educational provision for students who have stopped attending school often for multiple, complex and unique reasons (Cook, 2005;Pirrie et al, 2011). Partly due to their novelty, very little is known about this type of school, the practices used at such schools and what effects they may be having.…”