Figures published by KCC (Jan 2012) show that there are very high levels of permanent exclusions throughout the county. The statistics have alarmed the politicians and a countywide review is currently taking place. This is likely to be very much data driven and will take some considerable time to complete.
From the published data, there are some very interesting headlines
'One headteacher confirmed to me:
"headlines about the high number of permanent exclusions in my school show parents I operate a good discipline".
It's statements like this that seemed to show a complete disregard for the school as part of the community and the needs of the individual over the rights of the many. Heads like this are able to set up their school behaviour policies on whatever sets of standards they wish and seemed to revel in the fact that they have 'control' over young people who have effectively volunteered to turn up for their establishment in the hope that they will be better educated to cope in an ever-changing world. Good discipline also needs to be wrapped up in good caring and good supporting for those who aren’t robust and flexible enough to cope with the rigour of a zero-tolerance and do-as-you-are-told environment.
Approaches like this simply teach many of our young people that it is better not to turn up to school at all rather than face the often zero tolerance approach that some schools operate. They effectively would prefer to join the 66.000 or so who daily choose not to attend school, 16,000 choosing because of bullying. I think this also includes establishment bullying.
If we really want to be gathering some effective data, we should be speaking to those young people who have been failed by the system or are in the process of being failed by the system to find out what it was that caused them to step away from full-time education. In most cases, it will be simply because they have come into conflict with people wielding power in the schools and they have chosen to either to resist or perhaps not to take part at all. In many establishments resistance is futile and will be punished until compliance is achieved or the students stops attending.
In my opinion, this is the quickest route to building and reinforcing denial, disengagement, disaffection and opposition in our young people, four of the attributes we would possibly most like to see coached out of young people and key focus points when working through a supportive programme
I have worked with young people in such environment s and have always been amazed at the use of such aggressive, demanding, demeaning and downright rude approaches from many teachers and especially the senior managers towards the young people and in some cases the adults.
If we truly want to build education systems for the future, they surely must be based on brilliant people management, relationship building, empathy, sensitivity, caring, building up and generally life enhancing rather than knocking down, dominating, humiliating, punishing and seeking revenge for mistakes made within the system. Some schools justify this approach by claiming they are ‘Preparing their students for a life of work’ - I don’t think so
I do believe that many of these heads also have an open door policy on admissions yet very quickly close the door by exclusion for those students who are unable to modify their behaviours swiftly enough to cope with some of the very many rigid structures that schools can impose. Selection by exclusion is quite an issue, particularly in the academies, where power is often absolute
We need to have a much wider debate which includes re-routing the funding of more individualised off-site education via PRUs all shortstay schools and start to consider how that money could be better spent supporting some of our more vulnerable young people within their own school environment. It can be done, it just takes the will.
If one area of Kent, Ashford, is able to setup a zero exclusion zone successfully re-routing PRU finances back into the schools then surely that model could easily be rolled out not only just across Kent but also across the country.
It easier to build a child than to repair an adult
Kent County Council is debating a paper submitted which provides alarming figures for permanent exclusions in Kent, and especially for children with statements of Special Education in Kent.
KCC education director Patrick Leeson said: "The exclusion rate is too high and we have to recognise that and we will be doing a number of things to address that. It is an unacceptable number."
Work is to be commissioned to tackle all these issues, with a target that by 2015, there will be fewer than 50 children permanently excluded from school including a proportional impact on those with SEN.
This amounts to a challenging reduction of 80%.
My response to this is to ask why KCC will still be happy to see 50 young people failed completely by education system, not just an accidental failure but a structured failure built into this review. Why is the number not 0%? The answer being that there are a number of dominating and sometimes arrogant head teachers who seem to have been given the power to dispatch children to the streets with great ease. There are far more supportive approaches which could be taken, but these head teachers are people who seem to work around the requirements of the structure
A second target is to see no permanent exclusion of Looked After Children. Whilst I applaud the targets, sadly I see that, with the independence of academies and the government scrapping of independent appeal panels which keep a check on the validity of permanent exclusions, KCC's ability to influence school behaviour is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve them.
As a result we shall continue to see in Kent too many young people head for adulthood with damaged lives, to the detriment of all of society.
Once again, I'd like to hear your views
Kent Independent Education Advice
Kent Online
BBC News
First published 22 Jan 2012
From the published data, there are some very interesting headlines
- The number of children permanently excluded from Kent schools has risen by 23% in a year to 250 in 2010/11 from 202 the previous year
- 51 (25%) of those excluded in 2009-10 were pupils with statements of special needs - nationally about 7%
- Of the 195 exclusions from secondary schools in 2010-2011, 63 (32%) were from academies
- Of the 250 pupils permanently excluded in 2010-2011, 195 (78%) were from secondary schools and 44 (17%) from primaries
- The figures also include two of the highest excluding schools in the county where there were 21 permanent exclusions
'One headteacher confirmed to me:
"headlines about the high number of permanent exclusions in my school show parents I operate a good discipline".
It's statements like this that seemed to show a complete disregard for the school as part of the community and the needs of the individual over the rights of the many. Heads like this are able to set up their school behaviour policies on whatever sets of standards they wish and seemed to revel in the fact that they have 'control' over young people who have effectively volunteered to turn up for their establishment in the hope that they will be better educated to cope in an ever-changing world. Good discipline also needs to be wrapped up in good caring and good supporting for those who aren’t robust and flexible enough to cope with the rigour of a zero-tolerance and do-as-you-are-told environment.
Approaches like this simply teach many of our young people that it is better not to turn up to school at all rather than face the often zero tolerance approach that some schools operate. They effectively would prefer to join the 66.000 or so who daily choose not to attend school, 16,000 choosing because of bullying. I think this also includes establishment bullying.
If we really want to be gathering some effective data, we should be speaking to those young people who have been failed by the system or are in the process of being failed by the system to find out what it was that caused them to step away from full-time education. In most cases, it will be simply because they have come into conflict with people wielding power in the schools and they have chosen to either to resist or perhaps not to take part at all. In many establishments resistance is futile and will be punished until compliance is achieved or the students stops attending.
In my opinion, this is the quickest route to building and reinforcing denial, disengagement, disaffection and opposition in our young people, four of the attributes we would possibly most like to see coached out of young people and key focus points when working through a supportive programme
I have worked with young people in such environment s and have always been amazed at the use of such aggressive, demanding, demeaning and downright rude approaches from many teachers and especially the senior managers towards the young people and in some cases the adults.
If we truly want to build education systems for the future, they surely must be based on brilliant people management, relationship building, empathy, sensitivity, caring, building up and generally life enhancing rather than knocking down, dominating, humiliating, punishing and seeking revenge for mistakes made within the system. Some schools justify this approach by claiming they are ‘Preparing their students for a life of work’ - I don’t think so
I do believe that many of these heads also have an open door policy on admissions yet very quickly close the door by exclusion for those students who are unable to modify their behaviours swiftly enough to cope with some of the very many rigid structures that schools can impose. Selection by exclusion is quite an issue, particularly in the academies, where power is often absolute
We need to have a much wider debate which includes re-routing the funding of more individualised off-site education via PRUs all shortstay schools and start to consider how that money could be better spent supporting some of our more vulnerable young people within their own school environment. It can be done, it just takes the will.
If one area of Kent, Ashford, is able to setup a zero exclusion zone successfully re-routing PRU finances back into the schools then surely that model could easily be rolled out not only just across Kent but also across the country.
It easier to build a child than to repair an adult
Kent County Council is debating a paper submitted which provides alarming figures for permanent exclusions in Kent, and especially for children with statements of Special Education in Kent.
KCC education director Patrick Leeson said: "The exclusion rate is too high and we have to recognise that and we will be doing a number of things to address that. It is an unacceptable number."
Work is to be commissioned to tackle all these issues, with a target that by 2015, there will be fewer than 50 children permanently excluded from school including a proportional impact on those with SEN.
This amounts to a challenging reduction of 80%.
My response to this is to ask why KCC will still be happy to see 50 young people failed completely by education system, not just an accidental failure but a structured failure built into this review. Why is the number not 0%? The answer being that there are a number of dominating and sometimes arrogant head teachers who seem to have been given the power to dispatch children to the streets with great ease. There are far more supportive approaches which could be taken, but these head teachers are people who seem to work around the requirements of the structure
A second target is to see no permanent exclusion of Looked After Children. Whilst I applaud the targets, sadly I see that, with the independence of academies and the government scrapping of independent appeal panels which keep a check on the validity of permanent exclusions, KCC's ability to influence school behaviour is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve them.
As a result we shall continue to see in Kent too many young people head for adulthood with damaged lives, to the detriment of all of society.
Once again, I'd like to hear your views
Kent Independent Education Advice
Kent Online
BBC News
First published 22 Jan 2012