The debate goes on. Children have a right to an education, but not in my school. Their needs will be better served in a small, personalised unit like a PRU (Pupil Referral Unit).
From the TES article He's destined for a referral unit, but ministers say that shouldn't harm his chances
'Efforts to improve behaviour rather than teach English and Maths have led to children falling behind when they get back into school' according to DCSF officials
The main reason these children are in PRUs is because of their inability to cope with the variety of people they encounter and the sometimes harsh interactions they may receive from teachers and management when dealing with their poor behaviour choices. I think PRUs do a fantastic job just getting the pupils in to the centres on a regular basis and to start pushing the curriculum down their throats instead of working them through their challenges that got them excluded in the first place is not the right approach IMHO. The young people need to know that they are valued, despite their inability to manage the school environment and that the PRU is a secure and inviting environment for them to start rebuilding their lives. Without this, they will simply become part of the 66,000 who choose to remove themselves completely from the system.
It is easier to build a child, than to repair an adult
and adding the pressure of curriculum to an already crowded head full of emotions is a recipe for strategic withdrawal. When school has failed for whatever reason, stage 1 is to rebuild trust and some semblance of self esteem on the person. Getting them back into an establishment of any sort is a positive result. Building on that takes time. Give them the time they need - even if it seems too long, they will benefit in the long run
PRUs will be renamed 'Short Stay schools' from Sept 2010 to emphasise their temporary purpose and to prevent children from remaining in them too long.
Making the time a limited factor for attendees is a bit like offering counselling, but then limiting the course to suit the schedule rather than fitting it to the person. It's vital to listen to and work with young people so they have a voice about how THEY are feeling about re-integrating. Adding the pressure of a date before readiness is a recipe for a swift return to the centre, if a place is available. The idea of quicker turnaround is not about quality, it's about allowing more pupils to come through the referral system and make it look like the PRUs are being more successful. Yet another business-based strategy. These are people, not commodities. They don't want or need to be shovelled around the system to boost figures - even if the politicians want that.
What they need is a damn good listening to!
PRUs have been ordered to ensure children excluded from school have a full-time education (from 2011)
So the poor PRUs, often in inappropriate buildings and environment now have to provide full time education to those who the well-equipped and staffed schools say they can't manage. How they are also going to deliver the width of curriculum is a challenge - Pupils will have to be in lessons for the same length of time as their colleagues in mainstream schools, and PE, dance, drama, music, and art will also have to be on the timetable for those in "alternative provision". as well as having the specialised staff required for PE, for example.
And the second part of this post concerns the United Learning Trust - the country's biggest sponsor of academies
Failing academy may resort to expulsions
United Learning Trust (ULT) has laid out its plans for a radical transformation of standards at Sheffield Park Academy, one of only two academies currently in special measures.
The Christian charity, which runs 17 academies, has paved the way for permanent exclusions in the short term as it attempts to impose a new behaviour code at the school.
It has also warned that it is considering issuing fixed-notice penalties to parents whose children persistently miss school in a bid to turn around its absentee figures.
So it's really great to see schools and academies working with the pupils, parents and community. It's a very high handed approach and not unlike the Ninestyles system that pervades many of the schools I've visited. Comply or be gone.
My way or the highway
Sir Dexter Hutt was knighted for his contribution to education, an accolade he received for excluding some 25% of the school community, all this to get better results. It's a pretty simple approach that would have a great place in a game of cards. I don't like the hand I've been dealt, so I'll get rid of it and have another. I'm sure if I keep doing this, I'll eventually get a good set of cards and then I can win the game and look good. But the pupils excluded are real people, not cards. Real feeling with real futures, or not as the case may be.
So, Sheffield Park was put in special measures in September last year. A monitoring visit from Ofsted in December found that the progress being made was "inadequate".
The persistent problems at the school, which became an academy in September 2006 (see box), were described by Mr Balls as "unacceptable".
So the solution to this is to begin a programme of exclusions. How the community stand for this, I am not really sure. There are real parents with real concerns for their children's education and the school they have chosen now decides to remove large numbers of their children and replace them with hopefully better behaved ones.
Well, of course this type of programme will eventually work, but at what cost.
'Yes', I hear you shout 'But what about all those who manage to behave well. Aren't they entitled to learn without this disruption?'
Of course they are, but excluding them and shipping them out in great numbers to an already overstretched PRU system is not the answer. I think the answer lies within the school gates, onsite.
With the costings for PRU provision, many of these challenging pupils could, with help and appropriate funding, manage much better in their own social environment, in their chosen location, if there was a willingness to engage the pupils. To get them into a positive, supportive environment where they can re-learn the skills and techniques they may have lost along the way and then re-integration does not have to be an all in or all out provision. Some pupils can manage perhaps 50% of their lessons without any challenges at all, due to the staff who take the lessons or the subject matter. It's the hotspots that they can't manage.
Delivering re-integration via a selective and progressive programme, where the opinions and insights of the young people ARE taken into account. Where they are listened to and their voice is respected.
I have seen this happen and it can make a transformational change in young people's attitudes and confidence.
With this skilled intervention, I believe schools like Sheffield Park and many others like it could be managing their own excludable population much better within an on-site support unit and meeting their needs, both emotionally and educationally. This on-site provision would also allow social inclusion, where appropriate and parents would still see their children in the school of their choice, being appropriately supported.
I think this is a win-win situation for all sides and I'm constantly amazed at the few numbers of schools have build this provision into their support programmes.
From the TES article He's destined for a referral unit, but ministers say that shouldn't harm his chances
'Efforts to improve behaviour rather than teach English and Maths have led to children falling behind when they get back into school' according to DCSF officials
The main reason these children are in PRUs is because of their inability to cope with the variety of people they encounter and the sometimes harsh interactions they may receive from teachers and management when dealing with their poor behaviour choices. I think PRUs do a fantastic job just getting the pupils in to the centres on a regular basis and to start pushing the curriculum down their throats instead of working them through their challenges that got them excluded in the first place is not the right approach IMHO. The young people need to know that they are valued, despite their inability to manage the school environment and that the PRU is a secure and inviting environment for them to start rebuilding their lives. Without this, they will simply become part of the 66,000 who choose to remove themselves completely from the system.
It is easier to build a child, than to repair an adult
and adding the pressure of curriculum to an already crowded head full of emotions is a recipe for strategic withdrawal. When school has failed for whatever reason, stage 1 is to rebuild trust and some semblance of self esteem on the person. Getting them back into an establishment of any sort is a positive result. Building on that takes time. Give them the time they need - even if it seems too long, they will benefit in the long run
PRUs will be renamed 'Short Stay schools' from Sept 2010 to emphasise their temporary purpose and to prevent children from remaining in them too long.
Making the time a limited factor for attendees is a bit like offering counselling, but then limiting the course to suit the schedule rather than fitting it to the person. It's vital to listen to and work with young people so they have a voice about how THEY are feeling about re-integrating. Adding the pressure of a date before readiness is a recipe for a swift return to the centre, if a place is available. The idea of quicker turnaround is not about quality, it's about allowing more pupils to come through the referral system and make it look like the PRUs are being more successful. Yet another business-based strategy. These are people, not commodities. They don't want or need to be shovelled around the system to boost figures - even if the politicians want that.
What they need is a damn good listening to!
PRUs have been ordered to ensure children excluded from school have a full-time education (from 2011)
So the poor PRUs, often in inappropriate buildings and environment now have to provide full time education to those who the well-equipped and staffed schools say they can't manage. How they are also going to deliver the width of curriculum is a challenge - Pupils will have to be in lessons for the same length of time as their colleagues in mainstream schools, and PE, dance, drama, music, and art will also have to be on the timetable for those in "alternative provision". as well as having the specialised staff required for PE, for example.
And the second part of this post concerns the United Learning Trust - the country's biggest sponsor of academies
Failing academy may resort to expulsions
United Learning Trust (ULT) has laid out its plans for a radical transformation of standards at Sheffield Park Academy, one of only two academies currently in special measures.
The Christian charity, which runs 17 academies, has paved the way for permanent exclusions in the short term as it attempts to impose a new behaviour code at the school.
It has also warned that it is considering issuing fixed-notice penalties to parents whose children persistently miss school in a bid to turn around its absentee figures.
So it's really great to see schools and academies working with the pupils, parents and community. It's a very high handed approach and not unlike the Ninestyles system that pervades many of the schools I've visited. Comply or be gone.
My way or the highway
Sir Dexter Hutt was knighted for his contribution to education, an accolade he received for excluding some 25% of the school community, all this to get better results. It's a pretty simple approach that would have a great place in a game of cards. I don't like the hand I've been dealt, so I'll get rid of it and have another. I'm sure if I keep doing this, I'll eventually get a good set of cards and then I can win the game and look good. But the pupils excluded are real people, not cards. Real feeling with real futures, or not as the case may be.
So, Sheffield Park was put in special measures in September last year. A monitoring visit from Ofsted in December found that the progress being made was "inadequate".
The persistent problems at the school, which became an academy in September 2006 (see box), were described by Mr Balls as "unacceptable".
So the solution to this is to begin a programme of exclusions. How the community stand for this, I am not really sure. There are real parents with real concerns for their children's education and the school they have chosen now decides to remove large numbers of their children and replace them with hopefully better behaved ones.
Well, of course this type of programme will eventually work, but at what cost.
'Yes', I hear you shout 'But what about all those who manage to behave well. Aren't they entitled to learn without this disruption?'
Of course they are, but excluding them and shipping them out in great numbers to an already overstretched PRU system is not the answer. I think the answer lies within the school gates, onsite.
With the costings for PRU provision, many of these challenging pupils could, with help and appropriate funding, manage much better in their own social environment, in their chosen location, if there was a willingness to engage the pupils. To get them into a positive, supportive environment where they can re-learn the skills and techniques they may have lost along the way and then re-integration does not have to be an all in or all out provision. Some pupils can manage perhaps 50% of their lessons without any challenges at all, due to the staff who take the lessons or the subject matter. It's the hotspots that they can't manage.
Delivering re-integration via a selective and progressive programme, where the opinions and insights of the young people ARE taken into account. Where they are listened to and their voice is respected.
I have seen this happen and it can make a transformational change in young people's attitudes and confidence.
With this skilled intervention, I believe schools like Sheffield Park and many others like it could be managing their own excludable population much better within an on-site support unit and meeting their needs, both emotionally and educationally. This on-site provision would also allow social inclusion, where appropriate and parents would still see their children in the school of their choice, being appropriately supported.
I think this is a win-win situation for all sides and I'm constantly amazed at the few numbers of schools have build this provision into their support programmes.