Bolton Data for Inclusion

The Action Research Centre for Inclusion

(Sponsored by: The Barrow Cadbury Trust)

at

Bolton Institute of Higher Education.

Data No 28 :

November 1999

Author(s) :

Navin Kikabhai

Title :

Bolton Youth Challenge Project : Evaluating the effectiveness of a ‘suitable’ education for excluded pupils

Abstract :

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of Bolton Youth Challenge Project (BYCP) in offering a ‘suitable’ education to meet the educational needs of excluded pupils. The paper begins by describing the educational changes that followed from the Education Act of 1996, the primary legislation about the duty on Local Education Authorities to arrange suitable education for children (or young people) out of school. The focus will be on how these changes have operated in practice and how they have affected the lives of young people excluded from school.

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank all those who responded to the questionnaire, and those who participated in the interviews. I would also like to thank Karen and Carol for transcribing hours of taped interviews. I would also like to thank (Prof.) J. Whittaker for his support and guidance and also Jeff Hope for his support and  access to materials. My thanks to Pippa, family and my circle of friends for their unconditional support. Most of all I would like to thank the young people who attended Bolton Youth Challenge who participated in sharing their experiences and views about exclusion.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of Bolton Youth Challenge Project (BYCP) in offering a ‘suitable’ education to meet the educational needs of excluded pupils. The paper begins by describing the educational changes that followed from the Education Act of 1996, the primary legislation about the duty on Local Education Authorities to arrange suitable education for children (or young people) out of school. The focus will be on how these changes have operated in practice and how they have affected the lives of young people excluded from school.

Introduction

This paper examines the increasing concern about the exclusion of young people from mainstream schools. Exclusion from school, or being sent home temporarily or permanently or being asked to stand outside the class, is not a new phenomenon, yet the recording of pupils permanently excluded was almost unheard of until the 1990s. Prior to the 1990s the terms commonly in use were ‘suspension’ and ‘expulsion.’ The term ‘exclusion’ is relatively new and has since become increasingly common. There is firm evidence of exclusions increasing in the period of 1990 - 96, (Parsons,1999). This paper reviews recent data on exclusion and places this research study within the national context. The paper examines the effectiveness of a ‘suitable’ education by encouraging young people to participate in the research and by encouraging young people to express their voices, views and opinions, rather than accepting the exclusion without comment. As one individual from BYCP stated when asked what was needed to prevent more exclusions, “More ideas from pupils.” The paper concludes by referring to the research findings and highlights the concerns about exclusions.

Policy and Legislation

It has been the case that only head teachers can exclude a young person from school. Since 1 September 1998 head teachers have been able to exclude a pupil permanently, or for a fixed period or periods which do not in total exceed 45 days in a school year. The Education (No.2) Act 1986 and the Education Act 1993 are primarily about how to manage the process of exclusion. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 is the primary legislation about the duty on LEAs to arrange suitable education for children out of school. Section 19(1) now states that :

‘Suitable’ education is defined as efficient education suitable to that age, ability, aptitude, and to any special needs the child (or young person) may have. The Education Act 1998 (s.1) now states that schools can now exclude a pupil for forty-five days of fixed term exclusions, the full year’s allocation in one term. Fixed term exclusions are carried out in the intention that the young person will return to the school from which she or he was excluded. The fixed term exclusion can be on disciplinary grounds only, (s.68 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998). Permanent exclusions are made with the knowledge that the young person will not return from which she or he was excluded. Hayden (1997) and Parsons (1999) make plain the legitimisation of exclusion and argue the point that the law has become an instrument for exclusion.

In a recent report for the Commission for Racial Equality titled ‘Exclusion from School and Racial Equality,’ Osler (1997, p.17) points out the growing concern that : “Schools are required by statute to supply information on permanent exclusions to the LEA and Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), but they are not required to supply records of fixed term exclusions,” fixed term exclusions being defined as those between 5 and 15 days per term. To tackle this growing concern the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report on ‘Truancy and School Exclusion,’ (May 1998) reported that a series of targets should be set out in the LEAs Educational Development Plans to reduce exclusion by one-third by the year 2002, these targets should be set out by LEAs and apply from, “September 1999 for permanent exclusions and September 2000 for fixed-term exclusions,” (SEU, s5.4). However, Parsons (1999, pp.24-25) et al suggest that fixed term exclusions are about eight times more numerous than permanent exclusions and excluded boys at secondary level outnumber girls by approximately four to one. His suggested figures for fixed term exclusion tallies with that of Office For Standards in Education, (OFSTED), (as cited in ‘Truancy and School Exclusion’, 1998) which is estimated to be 100,000 a year.

A growing concern is the disproportional representation of social and racial groups who are excluded. It was recorded (OFSTED, 1996) that there were; “disproportionate numbers of minority ethnic pupils, in particular boys of Caribbean and African heritage (but increasingly also of boys of Pakistani heritage), being excluded.” It was also recorded that, “the permanent exclusion rate among children in care is 10 times higher than the average,” and young people who are labelled as having 'Special Educational Needs' are said to be “six times more likely” to be excluded, and young people who experience and live in areas of social and economic deprivation tend to have higher rates of exclusion, (Social Exclusion Unit, Truancy and School Exclusion, 1998). It is clear that this evidence alone not only supports the case that there is racist response to ‘difficult’ behaviour which lies behind the exclusion, but increasingly other socio-economic factors have been linked to exclusion from school, (Bourne, 1994, Osler, 1997, Parsons, 1999). The Government has decided that “since the problem of exclusion of ethnic minorities is so serious,” that published performance on exclusion should be broken down by ethnic group, (SEU, p.23). It is doubtful that this approach will tackle issues of racism and other forms of oppression, but will no doubt be used for ‘administration’ purposes, only to ‘monitor’ the situation.

A further growing concern is the rise in lunchtime exclusions where arrangements for the young person are made to go home. The school can set in motion the mechanism to exclude the young person for the duration of the lunchtime, placing the legal responsibility on the parent or carer. This mechanism draws into question the potential consequences of such actions. It may encourage truancy, it may compound issues of isolation, rejection and distress, wherever the responsibility lies it does not seek to engage the individual in creating a way of overcoming the problems of exclusion. Further, it can be argued that there are issues with parents, main care givers, or any other resources not being available. If not, what are schools saying? Young people are being put onto the streets were the current political and social concern is about anti-social behaviour. Is it possible that schools are putting young people and their ‘parents’ at risk of the measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, concerning anti-social behaviour, (Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, c.37, s1: Anti-social behaviour, s.8: Parenting orders, s.11: Child safety orders).

Yet another concern is the increasing amount of bullying that young people are experiencing. Recently bullying was recorded, at 30·1 per cent, as the most common reason for school exclusion, (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998, p.10). A recent survey in the North West of England; 500 primary and secondary schools from which 2527 pupils responded commented that bullying made them unhappy; recorded at 33.5% the largest percentage, (Whittaker, Kenworthy, Crabtree, 1998). As of from 1 September 1999 the law stated that, “The governing body of a maintained school shall ensure that policies designed to promote good behaviour and discipline on the part of its pupils are pursued at the school,” this is to ensure that every maintained school has a clear behaviour policy within which effective anti-bullying strategies should form a central part of the policy. The Act continues and outlines the responsibility of the head teacher with a view to, “preventing all forms of bullying among pupils,” (s.61, The School Standards and Framework Act, 1998).

Trends, Figures and Targets

When considering the trend of exclusion in England, Parsons (1999) states the figures for the years 1994 to 1998 to be :

When making a comparison of the exclusion of Bolton LEA then the trends are :

Source : Bolton LEA - Behaviour Support Plan 1999 / 2001 (p.3)

Rates of permanent exclusion change from one year to another in LEAs. In 1995/96 exclusion overall rose by 9 per cent. In the same year pupils permanently excluded in Bolton showed a decrease of 7.3 per cent. In the year 1996/97 the trend for England shows a decrease of 0.9 per cent. Pupils excluded in Bolton LEA rose by 3.4 per cent. In the data that was gathered for the overall exclusions in 1996/97 Parsons (1999) writes that out of “seventy-seven LEAs for which there were also figures for the previous year, five LEAs experienced a rise of more than 25 per cent and four a decrease of more than 25 per cent.” In the years 1997/98 permanent exclusions overall decreased by 3.1 per cent. In the same year exclusion rose in Bolton LEA by 1.1 per cent. In a recent article in the Bolton Evening News titled ‘Fewer pupils are expelled,’ the total number of permanent exclusions figures for 1998/99 was 86, this equates to a decrease of 6.5 percent from the previous year. These are tabulated as :

In a recent document by the DfEE; Draft Guidance on Social Inclusion : Pupil Support (s.6.2) the government has set targets to “reduce the number of school exclusions by one third by 2002, and each LEA has its own target designed to deliver this national objective.” The total number of pupils in Bolton LEA and grant maintained schools is 44,000 (Behaviour Support Plan for Bolton, 1998). Given the figures by Bolton LEA of permanent exclusions in 1997/98, there are 0.21% (or 2.1 for every 1000) of the school population permanently excluded. The LEA will have to reduce all permanent exclusions by 30 by the year 2002. As stated in the Behaviour Support Plan for Bolton (p.78) the target figures will need to be :

80 permanent exclusions in 1999 - 2000
70 permanent exclusions in 2000 - 2001
60 permanent exclusions in 2001 - 2002

These targets will be used by the government to monitor the LEAs progress for the three years and the LEAs will be asked to report each year on its progress. The government will publish data on schools performance on exclusion in the same way as performance on attainment targets. We have yet to see the consequences on schools with this approach. It may be seen as an indicator that school and LEAs are not tackling issues of exclusion and interpreted as a way of ‘naming and shaming’ excluding schools. The contrary issue to this approach is to tackle schools excluding young people who are in the run up to GCSEs, which are the peak years for exclusion, (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998, p.24). Whatever the interpretation, it will put increasing pressures on schools to construct mechanisms to keep young people in; young people caught up in this situation may soon be followed by a ‘deficit label’ and consequently find themselves excluded ‘officially.’ It would seem more constructive to challenge the support mechanisms that are set in place lying dormant rather than constructing an environment of confrontation.

Research Methodology

The purpose of any methodology is to map out the processes that were followed so that other researchers understand and if desired are able to carry out and replicate the procedure, Anderson and Arsenault, (1998). Recently there have been many debates about the methodological approaches to research with respect to quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative methods are primarily concerned with emphasising measurement of behaviour and predication of future measurements, the underlying assumption is that mathematical models exist which need to be uncovered. Qualitative methods are primarily concerned with understanding through conversation and observation in natural settings rather than through experimental manipulation under artificial conditions. Two of the concerns that are drawn to qualitative research is; the reliability of informants that may colour the interpretation of data, and secondly, that this method of research has more than one valid view of any social situation. However, these concerns often originate from the scientific community who often explain phenomena by instruments such as surveys and statistical tests. The validity of qualitative research in contrast, comes from keeping records of all sources of information used, using transcripts and taking field notes of all communications during the research process.

In order to identify the effectiveness or what might be considered ‘good practise’ in the context of school exclusion I collated and analysed three types of data. These were:

·        Secondary source material produced by Bolton LEA through the Behaviour Support Plan,

·        Primary source material through questionnaires to parents, staff, carers and young people who had attended BYCP, and

·        Transcripts from interviews with parents, staff, carers and young people.

In this study a qualitative and quantitative approach was used to allow the respondents to express their feelings and thoughts about the BYCP. In using a qualitative approach, the intention is that it will provide the opportunity to explore phenomena and to understand, explain and bring meaning and insight to the investigation. The approach was to obtain information through two questionnaires; the first for young people and the second designed for parents or carers. The questionnaire designed for young people contained seven questions, theses were :

1.   How did you come to hear about The Youth Challenge Project?

2.   Name one thing you liked about Youth Challenge?

3.   Name one thing you disliked about Youth Challenge?

4.   Name one thing you liked about staff at Youth Challenge?

5.   Name one thing you did not like about staff at Youth Challenge?

6.   Name one thing that would improve Youth Challenge?

7.   Name one difference between your school experience and the experience you had at Youth Challenge.

      Any other comments.

The questionnaire designed for parents or carers was similar except for question numbers, 6 and 7 which were:

6.   Name one thing that happened for your son/daughter after they attended Youth Challenge?

7.   Name one thing that would improve Youth Challenge?

Both questionnaires give the opportunity for respondents to be interviewed if desired. This was carried out by asking whether the respondent wished to talk about their views on the BYCP. The individual chooses Yes/No as appropriate and was asked to give their name and contact telephone number. The total number of questionnaires sent out was 50 from which there was 19 responses. A total of thirteen respondents chose to be interviewed. In carrying out the interview process the meetings took place either at Bolton Institute of Higher Education (BIHE), the respondents home settings or at BYCP. The interviews followed the framework of the questionnaire allowing the interviewee to explore and expand on issues or comments. During the interviewing process it was fundamentally important to state the aim, nature and purpose of the research and to ensure anonymity and consent to the use of recording equipment. It was also made clear that if direct quotations from the interview transcripts are used the identity of the individual will remain anonymous.

Recently we have seen an increasing concern with ethical issues when young people are involved in research. Alderson (1995, p40) states that :

Therefore, in carrying out research with the participation of young people it is fundamentally important to ensure that children have the same rights to confidentiality as any other person and to ensure that their views will be respected. By including their views and experiences the paper respects the rights of the young person and illustrates the crucial contribution that young people bring to our overall understanding of the consequences of school exclusions.

In gaining empirical data I had arranged to visit BYCP for young people wishing to be interviewed on the premises. I had previously sought permission and arranged these interviews through the young people and the project leader. One young person had expressed their desire to be interviewed even though they did not wish to fill in the questionnaire.

With respect to the transcripts fictional names have been used to conceal the participants identity. The transcripts include two parents, two carers and five young people.

Bolton Youth Challenge Project (BYCP)

BYCP was established in September 1996 by Bolton Local Education Authority. The project is funded through the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme and by the Local Education Authority and supported by the Youth Service. It continues to cater for young people between 14 and 16 years of age (Years 10 and 11) who are excluded from school. BYCP facilities include a garage with welding apparatus, woodwork and craft area, two small group workrooms and a social area with a pool table.

The aim of BYCP is to meet the educational needs of excluded young people and to provide an environment in which they can continue and complete their compulsory schooling years. The mission statement as set out by Bolton LEA states :

BYCP create in partnership with the young person an individual educational plan with a core curriculum covering mathematics, information technology and literacy including vocational subjects. Students negotiate their learning programme with staff and are guided by ‘Lifetime Careers.’ The careers advisers are responsive to individual client needs with the aim of aiding the transition into further education or training. In Year 11 it is expected that students gain work experience, a partnership with Rathbones Trust is able to provide monitored work placements linked to post-16 training provision.

Class sizes are less than eight to allow for intensive support. Tutorial support and counselling are also available from within BYCP. Working with parents and carers is an integral feature of the work.

Unfortunately in order to be considered for a placement at BYCP a young person has to be excluded from two or more schools, as stated in Bolton LEA Behaviour Support Plan: “At Key Stage 4 permanent exclusion from two schools can lead to consideration of Youth Challenge placement or short term home tuition if no place is available at Youth Challenge. At Key Stage 3 there is currently only short-term home tuition,” (p.65, s.5.1,(2)). It seems an irony and a nonsense that young people and their families have to experience the whole process of permanent exclusion at least twice before they find themselves receiving support constructively.

Summary of Data

Responses from 50 questionnaires.

Question 1 :      How did you first come to hear about The Youth Challenge Project ?

a) The response Educational Social Worker made reference to 'Wag Man'.

 Question 2 :      Name one thing you liked about Youth Challenge ?

a) Parents and Young People in expressing Openness - Attitude have made reference to : Environment, Friendly, Structured Setting, Sociable

b) In response to Staff key words included : Dedication

c) In response to Communication Parents / Carers expressed the availability of staff, being able to ring up.

Question 3 :      Name one thing you did not like about Youth Challenge ?

a) During 1996-97 pupils also attended a local FE college

b) The response No Discipline included the response; letting children out at dinner time.

Question 4 :      Name one thing you liked about staff at Youth challenge ?

a) Responses for Friendly included key words such as : loving, treated as adults, honesty, sense of belonging, informal, forgiveness - "forgive
    people when we had done something wrong."

b) Response to Helpful mentioned : issues of behaviour, non-judgemental, supportive, politeness.

c) Responses to Dedication included named individuals.

Question 5 :      Name one thing you did not like about staff at Youth Challenge ?

Question 6 (Young Person), Question 7 (Parents) :

                        Name one thing that would improve Youth Challenge ?

a) Respondents expressed in More Academic Study : more exam opportunities, more emphasis on academic qualifications - English, Maths
    GCSE.

b) Responses included : blank entries

c) Responses to Premises - Facilities made specific reference to : bigger craft room and wood room, better facilities for academic study.

Question 6 (Parents or Carers) :

            Name one good thing that happened for your son/daughter after they attended Youth Challenge ?

Question 7 (Young Person) :

            Name one difference between your school experience and the experience you had at Youth Challenge ?

Any Other Comments ? (Young Person)

In this section there were three no responses and other comments as documented below :

“Glad I went to Youth Challenge”

“Glad I got expelled”

“I found Youth Challenge very helpful”

“We was equal”

“Youth Challenge was the best thing in my life”

“Thank You”

Any Other Comments ? (Parents or Carers) :

In this section there was one no response, three responses were :

                        “Youth Challenge was a success”

two responses :

                        “I only have admiration”

and other comments:

“I just wish my daughter had spent 5 years at Youth Challenge rather than 3 years at secondary school and 2 at Youth Challenge. Those 2 years have been brilliant.”

“My son achieved more in twelve months at the Youth Challenge, than he did in all his school years.”

“Staff work really hard and are very child-centred.”

Research Findings and Discussion

On examining the data through the questionnaires, it is interesting and significant that the majority of people gained information about BYCP through the Local Education Authority or the Educational Social Worker. It is interesting to note that one of the carers came to hear of BYCP through a young person in care. Within the research field there is little evidence about the effects of exclusion on young people, families and carers. Parsons (1999) describes the process as very distressing for the family and very damaging to the young person. It is clear from the transcripts the lengths at which young people and parents have journeyed and the amount of stress and anxiety the exclusion process creates. As one parent describes the effects on her son when he was expelled ;

Parsons (ibid) et al goes on to describe the lack of intervention, support and planning which precede the event of exclusion.

In defining the term ‘effective’ within the context of education one standard mode of measure would be via league tables or what may be regarded as the attainment of academic credentials. Within the context of young people excluded from school, as well as considering academic credentials, numerous modes of measure may be considered such as; whether a young person liked or disliked courses and activities, relationships with peers, families and staff, self esteem and so on.

In analysing the response to one thing that people liked about BYCP the majority of parents expressed the ability to work with and cater for individual needs. The majority response expressed by young people was activities, these included; swimming, motor vehicle, woodwork, rock climbing and canoeing. In expressing a young person’s response via the transcripts it is clear the enthusiasm for activities and motor vehicle;

In response to the reciprocal question of one thing that people did not like about Youth Challenge a total of 8 parents or carers and 2 young people had no complaints. It was interesting that 3 young people had expressed college as their dislike. Young people who had since left BYCP and attended a local FE college recorded this response. There were also 2 responses that expressed no discipline as their dislike of BYCP.

In the response to one thing that people liked about staff at Youth Challenge 5 young people replied ‘friendly’ which included key words such as; loving, treated as adults, honesty, sense of belonging, informal and forgiveness. The responses by young people through the transcripts expressed a variety of qualities;