Study of Young People Permanently Excluded From School

Full text

Study of Young People
Permanently Excluded
From School
Harry Daniels, Ted Cole, Edward Sellman, Jane Sutton,
John Visser with Julie Bedward
School of Education
University of Birmingham
Research Report RR405
RESEARCH

i
Research Report
No 405
Study of Young People
Permanently Excluded From School
Harry Daniels, Ted Cole, Edward Sellman, Jane Sutton,
John Visser with Julie Bedward
School of Education
University of Birmingham
The views expressed in this report are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills.
© Queen’s Printer 2003. Published with the permission of DfES on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements
House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ.
ISBN 1 84185 925 7
March 2003

ii
Contents
List of tables and figures
iii
Abbreviations iv
Acknowledgement
iv
Executive Summary
v
Chapter One: Introduction
Context - Aims - Research objectives - Overview - Method - Overview
1
Chapter Two: Methodology and Choice of Sample
Recruitment of LEAs and the young people - First interviews, tracking
and final interviews - Sample attrition - Difficulties - Analysis
7
Chapter Three: The Young People's Experiences Prior to their
Exclusion
Key findings - Home and social factors - Youth offending prior to
exclusion - School-related factors (including relationships with staff
and peers, responses to curriculum, special educational needs, pre-
exclusion difficulties and interventions, fixed-term exclusions)
Summary
15
Chapter Four: From Exclusion to Offer of First Placement
Key findings - Reasons for exclusions - Perceived fairness/unfairness
of exclusions and links to later engagement in education/training -
Views on disciplinary committee and appeal hearings - Time to offer
of new placement - Summary
28
Chapter Five: The Service Providers' Perspective: the Range and
Appropriateness of Provision
Key findings - Overview - LEA Services (management, finance,
linkworkers, outreach teaching, re-integration into mainstream
schools) - Pupil referral units (physical sites, location, admissions,
exclusions, length of stay, hours offered, curriculum, relationships and
emotional needs, staffing, successes and difficulties) - Further
education college provision (promising developments, resistance,
'bridge courses', 'infill'/discrete provision) - Alternative education
programmes (management, staffing and funding, inter-agency
partnerships, evaluation) - Special schools - Input from non-
educational services ( social services, mental health services,
mentoring, careers, youth offending teams, inter-agency working)-
Summary
39
Chapter Six: The Young People's Early and Mid-period Experiences
after Exclusion:
Key findings - First placement (types of provision and frequency of
use, acceptance by young people/parents, time from exclusion to take-
-up of placement, hours offered, degrees of satisfaction/ engagement,
staff-young people relationships) - Mid-period engagement and
outcomes (excludees' engagement, re-integration and LEA support
71

iii
received by year group, minority ethnic groups, 'looked after' children,
young offenders, gender) - Summary
Chapter Seven: Approaching Two Years after Exclusion
Key findings - Destinations two years after exclusion - Young person
perceptions of the effects of exclusion - Engagement in education,
training or employment (by ethnicity, types of provision, youth
offending, looked-after status) - Employment (experience of working,
social networks assisting job seeking) - Client views on post-exclusion
education/training - Young people's other achievements - Support from
professionals - Ambitions for the future -Labour Force Survey - The
young people with whom contact was lost.- Summary
94
Chapter Eight: Implications for Policy and Practice
The service provider perspective (review of research objectives) - The
young person and family perspective (review of research objectives) -
Minority ethnic groups, 'looked after' children and youth offenders -
The central issues ( influencing young person attitudes and aspirations)
- Conclusion
120
Appendices:
A. Permanent Exclusion from School: a Review of Relevant
Literature
137
B. Interview Schedules and Questionnaire 168
C. Coding Frame for Data Analysis 177
D. The Trajectories of the Young People 185
List of references 193
Tables:
2.1 Details of LEAs in the sample
2.2 Sample by ethnicity
2.3 Numbers of first and final interviews using first and final interview schedules
2.4 Coverage of the final interviews
2.5 Percentage of each ethnic group giving final interviews and percentage of the
total number of final interviews by ethnic group
3.1 Ethnicity and relationships between young people and staff
3.2 Preference for/attainment in areas of the curriculum
3.3 The young people, special educational needs and the Code of Practice
3.4 Numbers of fixed-term exclusions prior to exclusion
4.1 Frequency of use of reasons for the exclusions by the LEAs
4.2 Perceptions of fairness of the exclusion (and by ethnicity)
4.3 Perceptions of fairness and engagement two years after exclusion
4.4 Reasons for exclusion and engagement two years after exclusion
4.5 Time from exclusion to LEA offer of first substantial placement
4.6 Activities during gap in education
4.7 Time to first substantial offer by type of institution/service
5.1 Summary of local authorities' range of provision supporting excluded pupils
6.1 Summary of first substantial provision post-exclusion
6.2 First placement by the year group in which young people excluded
6.3 Group or individual tuition
6.4 Hours offered at first placements outside mainstream schools
6.5 Summary of number of hours offered at first placements
6.6 Satisfaction of young people with programmed offered at first placement
6.7 Engagement at first placement and youth offending
6.8 Young person /staff relationships pre- and post-exclusion
7.1 Destinations of the young people 23-24 months post-exclusion

iv
7.2 Perceptions of the effects of exclusion two years after
7.3 Degrees of engagement in months 23-24
7.4 Engagement of the young people in months 23-24
7.5 Numbers of offenders pre and post-exclusion
7.6 Youth offending prior to exclusion compared to offending post-exclusion
7.7 Youth offending after exclusion by ethnic group
7.8 Qualifications obtained by the Y10 and Y11 young people
7.9 Social networks aiding achievement of employment
7.10 Types of employment ambition
7.11 Attitudes to education, training and future employment
7.12 Numbers of 'lost' young people by ethnic group
Figures:
6.1 Young people's satisfaction with hours offered at first placement
7.1 Numbers of white young people compared to black Caribbean young people
reported to be youth offenders after exclusion
8.1 Summary chart of post-exclusion trajectories
Abbreviations:
ACC Alternative curriculum co-ordinator
AEP Alternative education programme
AQA Assessment and Qualifications Authority
ASDAN Award Scheme Development and Accreditation Network
CAMHS Child and adolescent mental health services
DfEE Department for Education and Employment
DfES Department for Education and Skills
EBD Emotional and behavioural difficulties
EOTAS Education otherwise than at school
EWO Educational welfare officer
FE Further education
GEST Grants for Education, Support and Training
HAS Health Advisory Service of National Health Service
LAC Looked after child
LEA Local education authority
LSU Learning support unit
NVQ National vocational qualification
PRU Pupil referral unit
PRS Pupil referral service
PSP Pastoral support programme
RO Research objective
SENs Special educational needs
SSD Social services department
Y9,Y10,Y11 Year group in which the young person was excluded
YOT Youth offending team
Acknowledgement
The research team is grateful to the young people, their parents and to the staff of the
local education authorities and other agencies who gave so freely of their time in
contributing to this study.

v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Background
1.1 This study tracked the careers for a two year period, of 193 young people after
their permanent exclusion from school during Year 9, Year 10 or Year 11 (13 to 16
years of age) in a representative sample of 10 LEAs. It was commissioned at a time of
continuing concern about the numbers of young people excluded from school and the
provision made for them. It investigated the impact of pre- and post-exclusion
processes, provision and outcomes on the life-chances of the young people and wider
indicators of interventions that made a positive difference. There was a particular
focus on 'at risks' groups (black young people and children 'looked after'). The study
provided evidence of whether the young people were actively involved in education,
training or employment two years after their permanent exclusion.
1.2 In this Executive Summary and in the main report, the use of the phrase ' the
young people' refers specifically to the young people forming the sample for this
study. 'Young person' denotes one member of the sample. 'The exclusion' refers to the
specific permanent exclusion in the academic year 1999/2000 that resulted in the
young person being included in this study.
2. Major findings
2.1 Approximately 50% of the young people were engaged in education, training or
employment 23 - 24 months after their permanent exclusion. In achieving these
outcomes the following factors were important:
• the young people had belief in their own abilities;
• ongoing support after the permanent exclusion from link-worker or other skilled
local authority staff ;
• supportive family members or friends who helped to 'network' the young people
into their communities;
• the young people feeling that their permanent exclusion had been unjust.

vi
When permanently excluded young people consistently refused to engage with or
proved themselves unable to avail themselves of the services offered, then post-
exclusion outcomes were disappointing.
2.2 The ethnicity of the young people was rarely associated with positive or negative
outcomes following the exclusion. The exceptions to this general finding are
highlighted below.
2.3 No one type of provision was associated with achieving more successful
outcomes. Various post-exclusion pathways were followed leading to both successful
outcomes and disengagement or refusal of services.
2.4 The provision attended by the young people after their exclusion tended to be
determined by the vacancies available in local provision rather than a careful
matching of a young person's needs to appropriate provision. There was wide
variation in the quantity of each kind of provision across the sample LEAs.
2.5 Re-integration into mainstream schools often failed but was possible in highly
inclusive schools when generously supported by the LEA or when the young person
was determined to make a success of his or her new mainstream school placement.
2.6 Those who offended prior to exclusion usually continued to offend post-exclusion
and others started to offend. About half of the sample were believed to be post-
exclusion offenders (these data were based on staff, young person and parent accounts
- not police records).
2.7 Only 26 young people were known to have passed a GCSE (28.6% of the young
people for whom there were data) including only one out of 10 'looked after' children.
3. Policy implications
3.1 To address needs adequately, LEAs and partner agencies must make available a
range of well-resourced provision (including pupil referral units, programmes in
further education, alternative education programmes involving youth, career and other
community services, perhaps working with voluntary agencies). In this study different
forms of provision appealed to and were successful with different young people.

vii
3.2 It is difficult to force young people who have been permanently excluded down
routes they actively resist. Policy and practice have to build upon the client
perspective, taking into account:
• what motivates the young person in the present and likely future;
• what the young person believes s/he is capable of achieving in the present and
likely future.
This study showed a variety of professionals building upon the client perspective
across a range of sites. Where staff, with adequate resources, had skill and
commitment, the prognosis could be positive for many of the young people. Policy
should facilitate the work of these staff.
4. Key findings from individual chapters
4.1 The young people's experiences prior to their exclusion (Chapter 3)
• Many of the young people had severe social difficulties beyond school.
• 40% were reported to have offended prior to their exclusion.
• Many young people had satisfactory relationships with some staff prior to
exclusion, although this was less likely for black students.
• Skilled staff could make any curriculum subject engaging but many of the
young people expressed a preference for practical subjects and sport.
• About half the sample had identified special educational needs, most
commonly, emotional and behavioural difficulties mixed with some learning
difficulties.
• Permanent exclusion usually followed a long history of behavioural challenges
from the young person to the excluding school.
4.2 From exclusion to offer of first placement (Chapter 4)
• The official reason for exclusion should be viewed with caution but 'actual or
threatened assaults' were the most common reasons for exclusion.
• Black pupils were more likely than white young people to think that their
exclusion was unfair.

viii
• Those thinking their exclusion unfair were more likely to be engaged in
education, training or work two years after their exclusion than those
accepting their exclusion as fair.
• Those excluded for repeated verbal defiance were less likely to be engaged
two years after exclusion than those excluded for assault.
• The families of the young people tended to value the help from the LEA prior
to discipline committee and independent appeal hearings.
• Families and the young people confused discipline committee and independent
appeal hearings and doubted the value of these meetings.
• The mean time from exclusion for LEAs to make an offer of substantial
alternative placement was 3.23 calendar months (sometimes including school
holidays).
• There was no significant association between time-out of education prior to
offer of first placement and engagement in education, training or employment
two years after the young person's exclusion.
4.3 The service providers' perspective: the range and appropriateness of provision
(Chapter 5)
• Each of the 10 LEAs offered a range of provision for excluded young people
including PRUs, re-integration into different mainstream schools, further
education and alternative education programmes. The offers varied in quantity,
for example, there were long waiting lists for admissions to PRUs in two
LEAs.
• Link-workers from a range of professional backgrounds could make a
significant contribution to positive outcomes for excluded young people.
• Achieving successful re-integration into mainstream schools was difficult but
possible subject to the receiving school having an inclusive ethos, the young
person accepting normal school rules and routines and ongoing support being
offered by the LEA.
• Skilled, experienced staff, whatever the type of provision, were crucial to
successful outcomes.
• Pupil referral units were sometimes obliged to make long-term provision for
excluded pupils.

ix
• Provision in further education colleges for 14 to 16 year old students is
developing but there remain staff preparation and training issues.
• Alternative education programmes (e.g. run in partnership with national
voluntary organisations) can work well but tend to be subject to uncertain and
limited funding.
• Generally, there remains a need for improved inter-agency working in support
of excluded pupils.
4.4 The young people's early and mid-period experiences after exclusion
(Chapter 6)
• As their first substantial placement after exclusion, over half the total sample
(56%) went to pupil referral units; 14.5% to new mainstream schools and
6.5% to FE Colleges.
• About 40% of those going to PRUs received 11-20 hours' education a week
and 40%, 5-10 hours a week. Of the young people for whom there were data,
two thirds were satisfied and engaged with the programmes provided at their
first placement.
• Relationships between the young people and their new teachers were much
better than their relationships with staff in the excluding schools.
• Youth offending was associated with disengagement from placements.
• There was no association between engagement and ethnicity or looked-after
status.
• Table D1 (Appendix D) shows varied pathways in the mid-period, with
different young people settling or not settling into different types of provision.
• No patterns emerged in relation to ethnicity.
• Most of the small sample of children 'looked after' continued to pose serious
difficulties.
4.5 Approaching two years after exclusion (Chapter 7)
Two years after exclusion, contact had been lost with 27% of the sample including
a disproportionately high percentage of black young people and girls. In relation
to those with whom contact was maintained:
• About half were judged to be engaged in education, training or employment .

x
• Engagement in all types of educational provision fell away as young people
neared school leaving age.
• Half of the young people saw their exclusion as damaging but 19% saw it as a
positive event.
• Young people who had received more fixed-term exclusions prior to exclusion
were more likely to be disengaged.
• Those who offended prior to exclusion usually continued to offend post-
exclusion and others started to offend. About half of the sample were post
exclusion offenders.
• There was a trend towards white rather than black young people being
offenders.
• White young people were more likely to be disengaged than black young
people.
• Only 26 young people were known to have passed a GCSE (28.6% of the
young people for whom there were data) including only one out of 10 'looked
after' children.
• Young people in employment had often used family contacts/networks to
obtain their job.
• Some help had been received for most of the young people from careers
officers, education welfare officers and re-integration teachers but rarely
mental health workers, social workers, or workers from the 'new services'
(Connexions, Youth Offending Teams).
• Many of the young people had very limited ambitions for the future.
5. Methodology
5.1 The study began in September 2000 and ended in September 2002. It was a
quantitative and qualitative longitudinal study over four phases, involving semi-
structured interviews, ongoing informal contacts with young people, families and staff
and documentary analysis. Interviews were recorded, noted and coded using the
headings employed in the interview schedules and a framework for analysis agreed
with DfES.

xi

1
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Context. In the decade preceding this study, there was considerable concern about
the general rise in the numbers of pupils permanently excluded from schools (see
Appendix A, A2.3) and the particular over-representation of certain minority ethnic
groups and children 'looked after' by local authorities in those numbers. A suspected
link between exclusion and youth offending was also an issue. Further, worries were
expressed about the quality and quantity of provision made for young people once
excluded from school.
While official school exclusion figures were declining in 1999 concern
continued and exclusion figures for 2000/2001 were to show an increase. New
government guidance was contained in Circular 10/99, 'Social Inclusion: Pupil
Support' (DfEE, 1999a) and Circular 11/99 (DfEE, 1999b). These laid out clear
guidelines (e.g. on the operation of discipline committee hearings and independent
appeal hearings) for schools and LEAs to follow. These requirements were coming
into effect as the young people, who became the sample for this study, were being
permanently excluded in the academic year 1999/2000.
A crucial government target was that LEAs were to make suitable full-time
provision for excluded pupils by September, 2002, a date that fell after the formal
time-frame for this study. It is also important to note that new government initiatives,
in particular, Connexions and Youth Offending Teams, likely to be of benefit in
providing 'rounded' inter-agency services for excluded young people, were in their
infancy during the course of this study.
1.2 Aims. The study sought to highlight factors associated with positive outcomes for
excluded pupils including both those who returned to mainstream education and those
who did not. The aims were:
a.) to track, over a two year period from the point of exclusion, the outcomes for a
sample of young people permanently excluded from mainstream school;
b.) to identify whether the outcomes differed for different groups of children;
c.) to identify both institutional and individual factors which had an impact upon
those outcomes.

2
1.3 Research Objectives.
1.3.1 The study was to examine the post-exclusion trajectories of the sample of
young people from the perspective of:
• the service providers, in particular the sample local education authorities
(LEAs);
• the service recipients, in particular the sample of young people but also their
families (or occasionally, their carers).
1.3.2 The service providers' perspective. From the LEAs' and other local agency
perspective, the study sought to describe and discuss (in relation to their impact on
the life-chances of the young people permanently excluded):
• (Research Objective 1[RO1]) the quality of exclusions data gathered in each of
the LEAs;
• [RO2] the time taken to secure alternative or new mainstream provision for
young people following their permanent exclusions;
• [RO3] the range of provision and support for excluded pupils and the extent to
which pupils can be placed in appropriate provision;
• [RO4] the priorities within each site of provision/ service (e.g. educational
rather than social);
• [RO5] the degree of openness of the senior staff in mainstream schools to
admitting pupils permanently excluded from other schools.
1.3.3 The service recipient perspective. From the young people's, family's and/or
carer's perspective, the study sought to describe and discuss (in relation to their
impact on the life-chances of young people permanently excluded):
• [RO6] the degree of young people and parental involvement in the post-
exclusion processes;
• [RO7] academic and other qualifications achieved by the young people at the
end of Year 11 and later within the two year period following exclusion;
• [RO8] social milestones and employment histories of the young people in
relation to targets set;
• [RO9] pathways taken/trajectories followed;

3
• [RO10] levels of pre- and post- exclusion support from families, professionals
and services;
• [RO11] the young people's personal opinions, attitudes, expectations and other
individual factors relating to pre- and post-exclusion;
• [RO12] other pre- and post-exclusion institutional factors identified as relevant
by the interviewees.
1.4 Overview of the study. This study was commissioned by the Department for
Education and Employment (DfEE) and was undertaken by the School of Education
at the University of Birmingham ('the research team'). It began in September 2000 and
ended in September 2002. While tracking the careers, for a two year period, of 193
young people after their permanent exclusion from school during the academic year
1999 to 2000, it addressed the research objectives listed in paragraph 1.3. The study
adds considerably to the existing research literature in this area (see literature review
in Appendix A).
1.5 The sample. The ten sample LEAs were a representative cross-section of English
local education authorities (see Chapter 2 for further details). The young people were
in Years 9 (aged 13-14 years of age), Y10 (14-15 years) or Y11 (15-16 years) at the
time of their permanent exclusion. The sample was weighted towards Y9 and Y10
deliberately: it was felt that young people excluded in Y11 could be difficult to find
and then to track as they had already ceased to be the responsibility of LEAs, having
passed compulsory school leaving age in June, 2000. The DfEE requested a particular
focus on those who have been shown to be disproportionately more likely to be
permanently excluded: black pupils, young offenders, children 'looked after' and very
disengaged young people who were often 'lost' to their local authorities. The sample
was identified from records on 480 young people held centrally by the LEAs for
1999/2000. This approach was unlike other studies of exclusions, where samples had
consisted of young people who regularly attended particular provisions or who
volunteered to participate. This study aimed and succeeded in reaching many young
people who were either refusing, avoiding, or had very tenuous links with education,
training or other services offered (although this was not a factor in deciding who to
include in the sample).

4
1.6 Methodology and analysis. The study had four phases:
• Phase 1- literature review;
• Phase 2 - recruitment of representative LEAs and the excluded young people;
• Phase 3 - interviews with staff who knew them well for the staff view on
effective approaches;
• Phase 4 - first interviews with students and parents, tracking of the Young
people and final interviews).
The study involved semi-structured interviews, ongoing informal contacts with young
people, families and staff and documentary analysis. Interviews were recorded and
noted using the headings employed in the interview schedules (see Appendix B).
Selected interview tapes were transcribed to provide material and direct quotations for
vignettes and more general use in this report. Data were coded in the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) according to a detailed coding frame agreed with
DfEE. Summaries of the post-exclusion trajectories of the pupils were plotted using
Microsoft Excel (see Table D1, Appendix D). Further information on methodology is
given in Chapter 2.
1.7 Help from LEAs and other agencies. The contribution of many professionals
from a range of agencies was excellent. For example, they set up home visits or
accompanied research team members on visits to potentially hostile and violent
homes. They helped the research team to build relationships thereby facilitating the
gathering of extensive initial and final interview data . Their input helped to minimise
sample attrition. Where help from local professionals was less forthcoming, the
percentage of successfully completed interviews was lower.
1.8 Coding system. Aware of the sensitive subject matter and wishing interviewees to
speak freely, the research team committed itself to protect the anonymity of local
authorities and individual interviewees. A coding system was therefore adopted. The
ten LEAs have been allocated a letter from 'A' through to 'K' (omitting 'I' for clarity).
Each young person has been allocated a number prefixed by the letter denoting the
LEA where the pupil lived at the time of his or her permanent exclusion in 1999/2000.

5
1.9 Terminology: degrees of 'engagement'. To describe the educational and
vocational status of the young people in their first substantial placement after
permanent exclusion ('first placement') and approximately two years after their
exclusions ('months 23 - 24'), three words were chosen to denote sectors of a
continuum of engagement/disengagement:
• 'Engaged'. Where the data indicated the Young Person attending
educational/work experience or vocational provision; or after reaching school
leaving age, further education, training or substantial employment, they were
deemed to be 'engaged';
• 'Refusers'. Where the data indicated, prior to their reaching compulsory
school leaving age, young people failing to take up the varied offers of their
LEA and/or other local agencies, they were deemed to be 'refusers';
• 'Disengaged'. Where the data indicated poor (occasional and intermittent)
take-up of LEA and/or other local agency offers of provision prior to attaining
compulsory school leaving age (e.g. unauthorised absences exceeding 50%),
such young people were deemed to be 'disengaged'. If, after reaching school
leaving age, they did not take up offers of training on a regular basis and/or
did not seek employment or persevere with courses at FE, they were also
deemed to be 'disengaged'.
A fourth grouping of 'lost' was necessary. This word is used to denote the young
people who could not be followed by the research team at or from differing points
in the twenty-four month period following their exclusion.
The research team acknowledges the lack of specificity of these terms and
sometimes the difficulties in fitting particular young people into what were
merging sectors of a continuum rather than clear-cut categories created by the
first three of these terms. However, some grouping and application of labels was
necessary for communication of ideas and reporting of findings.
1.10 Other terminology. The terms 'the young person' or 'the young people' are
adopted to allow for the facts that the sample consisted of teenagers who might be
school pupils, or further education students or who might not be attending any form of
educational or training provision. Many of the young people received fixed-term
exclusions and less frequently, permanent exclusions before and after the exclusion

6
that brought them into the sample for this study. When 'the exclusion' is used without
qualifying adjective or descriptive phrase, it denotes the particular permanent
exclusion in the academic year 1999/2000 that was instrumental in getting the young
person included in this study. 'The exclusion' denotes the time the young person's
headteacher sent the formal letter of permanent exclusion to the responsible LEA i.e.
the point the young person was forbidden from attending the school. It does not
denote the time the LEA confirmed the permanent exclusion i.e. after the disciplinary
committee hearing or after the failure of a young person's formal appeal (see
Appendix A, section A4 for a description of these post-exclusion procedures).
1.11 Overview of this report. The primary focus of the study was to examine the
post-exclusion careers of the chosen sample. However, background factors could be
associated with particular outcomes for the young people. Therefore, after a chapter
describing the methodology, Chapter 3 is devoted to reporting provision, processes,
pupil and family factors ahead of the young people's exclusion in the academic year
1999/2000. Chapter 4 reports and discusses findings relating to the period from the
headteachers' formal letter of permanent exclusion to the LEAs' offer of a substantial
first placement. Chapter 5 reports findings on the sample LEAs' provision, policies
and practice. Chapter 6 focuses on the early and mid-period (up to about eighteen
months after the exclusion) in the young people's trajectories. Chapter 7 covers the
data from the final interviews and other information on the young people in the late
months of the two year post-exclusion period. Throughout this study, attention was
paid to young people from minority ethnic groups and to gender. However, few
outcomes were found to be associated significantly with ethnicity or gender. The
exceptions to this are clearly indicated in the chapters below. There was also a focus
on outcomes in relation to youth offending and to 'looked after' children. Significant
data in relation to these two groups are highlighted. Chapter 8 discusses implications
of the study for central and local government policy and practice. The appendices
contain a review of recent relevant literature, the research instruments, coding frame
for SPSS and Table D1, a visual representation of the two year trajectories of each of
the young people.

7
Chapter Two: Methodology and Choice of Sample
2.1 Introduction. This was a four-phase study:
• Phase 1 - literature review (Autumn 2000);
• Phase 2 - recruitment of LEAs and the excluded young people ('The Young
people') (late Autumn, 2000 to Spring, 2001);
• Phase 3 - interviews with staff having knowledge of the Young people and
study of documentation relating to the Young people (Spring/Summer, 2001);
• Phase 4 - consisted of :
o first interviews with the Young people and their parents
(Spring/summer 2001);
o tracking of their trajectories (Spring, 2001 - June, 2002);
o final interviews with Young people, parents and staff approximately
two years after each Young Person's permanent exclusion (September,
2001 to June, 2002).
2.2 Phase 1: Literature Review. The Literature Review is reproduced in Appendix
A. The literature review and the research proposal guided the Research Team's
construction of interview schedules (see Appendix B).
2.3 Phase 2: Recruitment and LEA officer interviews (late Autumn, 2000).
Government exclusion statistics showed LEAs with high, average or low rates of
permanent exclusion for the year 1997/1998 in comparison to national and regional
means. A representative sample of English LEAs was selected and agreed with DfEE
and subsequently recruited. The sample of LEAs was also chosen with DfEE
according to region, type, size of secondary school population and ethnic
representation. LEA officers were then interviewed about the range of provision
offered and LEA data about exclusions examined. These data included information on
where pupils were placed.

8
Table 2.1: Details of the LEAs in the sample
LEA
Region
Type
Size of
secondary
school
population
Ethnic
minority
numbers
in PEx
('97/'98)
Secondary
schools PEx
('97/'98)
% of school
populn.1
Number of
young
people in
the sample
A Midlands Urban >20,000 High > 0.45 47
B London Suburban <20,000 Average >0.40 18
C Midlands Unitary urban <20,000 High >0.65 20
D North Urban >25,000 High >0.35 18
E North Urban <18,000 Low >0.45 21
F North Borough <18,000 Average >0.35 20
G Midlands Borough <20,000 High >0.55 19
H S. East Unitary urban <10,000 High >0.40 12
J South Unitary urban <15,000 Low >0.40 9
K London Inner City <15,000 High <0.30 9
Notes: 1. cf means for secondary schools; 0.33% (national); 0.48 (inner London); 0.34% (N. West
and Merseyside); 0.37% (West Midlands); 0.32% (South East - excluding London).
2.4 Phase 2: Recruitment of the young people (late autumn - early 2001).
2.4.1 Responding to the sampling strategy. The study was concerned with
associations between processes and outcomes. The selection strategy therefore
prioritised the young people's 'first placement' after exclusion (i.e. placement at new
mainstream school, PRU, further education college, 'other' or home
tuition/outreach teaching) but also included pupils not thought by the LEAs to be
engaging in any form of provision. Within each cohort of 'first placement' the
young people were selected to include an over-representation of particular 'at risk'
groups i.e. groups known to be over-represented in exclusion figures and at risk of
wider marginalisation (see section A2.5, Appendix A). These groups were black
young people of Caribbean heritage; black young people of 'other black heritage'
i.e. parents or grandparents from Africa or other non-Caribbean or non-African
countries (see Table 2.2); and 'looked after' children. DfEE statistics for 1997/98
showed 7.4% of excludees were of black Caribbean heritage; 1.95% of black
African and 2.78% of other black heritage.
Table 2.2: Sample by ethnicity
Ethnicity Sample size (% of total sample)
White 104 (53.9)
Black Caribbean 35 (18.1)
'Other black heritage' 13 (6.7)
Bangladeshi 11 (5.7)
Pakistani 11 (5.7)
Indian 2 (1.0)
'Dual ethnicity'* 17 (8.8)
Total 193
* 'Dual ethnicity' consisted in most cases of white and black Caribbean heritage; occasionally
more than two ethnic heritages.

9
Twenty children reported by the LEAs to have been or at that time being 'looked
after' were also included in the sample. In line with the approximately four to one
national ratio for boy/girl exclusions, 156 males and 37 females were recruited.
2.4.2 Age range and size of sample. The study was required to focus on pupils in
Years 9 (aged 13-14), Year 10 (aged 14-15) and Year 11 (aged 15-16) (For
1999/2000, government statistics show that, nationally, 78% of the young people
excluded were aged between 13 and 16). There were 480 Years 9,10 and 11 young
people in the ten LEAs in 1999/2000. From the 480, two hundred young people
were chosen. Less young people from Year 11 were chosen because of fears that
pupils excluded in Year 11 would be more likely to become lost to their LEAs and
to the research team. A final sample of 195 was agreed with DfEE. Subsequently it
was found that the data relating to two of the chosen sample were faulty and they
were ineligible for the study. The final number in the sample was therefore 193
young people: 86 pupils excluded in Y9; 84 in Y10 and 23 in Y11.
2.4.3 Replacements. Letters were sent to each young person offering the chance
for the young person or his or her parents to refuse participation. Where refusals
occurred, replacements were recruited to maintain the balance required in the
sample (e.g. if a black young person of Caribbean heritage in Y10 refused to take
part, another black Caribbean in Y10 was chosen).
2.5 Phase 3: Interviews with staff and documentary analysis. A member of LEA
staff with knowledge of each child's school career and post-exclusion trajectory was
interviewed in relation to 185 of the 193 young people (96%). The schedule
reproduced in Appendix B was used for each of these. Eight young people were not
well known to a member of LEA staff, for instance they had never attended local
alternative provision or had moved on to a different area. Some data could be
established on these young people but a full interview, using the schedule, could not
be conducted. When an interviewee's knowledge of the young person turned out to be
limited, additional members of LEA or other agency staff (e.g. PRU teacher,
educational welfare officer or FE programme co-ordinator) were interviewed to build
a more detailed account of the young person's pre- and post-exclusion trajectory.

10
Where possible, documentary evidence supplied by LEA officers or encountered on
site at PRUs or education offices was studied to verify or add to the accounts of the
trajectories. Before each member of LEA staff was interviewed about the young
person, details about the professional's experience, work role, knowledge of the LEA's
provision and his or her assessment of the effectiveness of approaches and services
were elicited (see sections 1 and 2 of staff interview schedule, Appendix B). This
information was later expanded, as opportunities arose during the tracking process
(see 2.6.2), by conversations with staff and study of documents, to further identify
factors thought to link to successful outcomes for the young people.
2.6 Phase 4: First interviews, tracking and final interviews.
2.6.1 'First interviews' with the young people and parents. First Interviews using
the young person and parent schedule (see Appendix B II) took place with 116 of
the young people (60%). Using the same schedule, face-to-face or telephone
interviews were conducted with 105 parents (54.4%). Conducting detailed
interviews, using the schedule, proved impossible in relation to 77 young people,
given their disengagement from sites of provision and/or lack of availability for
interviews in their homes. A summary of the interviews using the schedules is
given in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Numbers of first and final interviews using interview schedules (see
Appendix B)
First Interviews Final Interviews
Total sample= 193
Column A: Interviews
with:
Col B:
Number
(% of 193)
Col. C:
Covering YPs
(% of 193)
Col. D:
Number
(% of 193)
Col. E:
Covering YPs*
(% of 193)
Young Person 116 (60.1) 88* (45.6)
Parents (occasionally
close relative or carer for
children 'looked after')
105 (54.4)
63* (32.6)
Staff 185 (95.9)
185 (95.9)*
12* (6.2)
132 (68.4)
* On occasions, the young person and his or her parent and a staff member gave a final
interview. Therefore the numbers in column D, if aggregated, do not equal the 132 shown in
column E. For similar reasons, in relation to first interviews, the 185 in column C does not equal
the sum of the numbers in column B.
Brief telephone or face-to-face conversations (not using the final interview
schedule) with contacts in the LEAs with some but not detailed knowledge of the
young people, allowed the research team to establish the whereabouts and degree of
engagement two years after exclusion of 9 young people. These were in addition to
the 132 young people who had been covered by use of the final interview schedule.

11
2.6.2 Constructing the twenty-four month trajectories (tracking). Updates on
the young people's trajectories were obtained between first and final Interviews
through visits to sites of provision and periodic telephone conversations with either
the young people, their families, PRU staff, Re-integration Teachers, link-workers
and other professionals with current knowledge of the young people's whereabouts
and progress. The fact that the end of the two year post-exclusion for each of the
young people occurred anytime between September 2001 and July, 2002, required
ongoing visits by the research team to some sites of provision (e.g. PRUs) and to
family homes in the LEAs to conduct final interviews. While the primary purpose
of a visit would be to conduct one or more final interview, the opportunity was
taken to gather information on events in the mid-period for other of the young
people (described in Chapter 6 and recorded in Table D1, Appendix D). No formal
instrument was felt appropriate to cover the variety of situations in which such
tracking data, usually of a factual nature, were gathered.
2.6.3 Final interviews. Final interviews using the schedule reproduced in
Appendix B III and the Labour Force Survey Questionnaire (Appendix B IV) took
place with either the young person, a parent (or close relative) or failing this, a
professional with a close knowledge of the child. Final interviews took place in
relation to 132 young people (68.4%) near the end of the two year post-exclusion
period (see Table 2.3). Details of the coverage of the final interviews is given in
Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Coverage of the final interviews.
Excludee sub-groups:
Number of Final Interviews
(% of sub-group n)
Year 9 (n=86) 59 (68.6)
Year 10 (n=84) 55 (65.5)
Year 11 (n=23) 18 (78.3)
Males (n=156) 110 (70.5)
Females (n=37) 22 (59.5)
Looked after (n=20) 14 (70.0)
Table 2.5 gives an analysis of the final interviews by ethnicity. A smaller
percentage of black young people were covered by the final interviews compared to
coverage of white young people.

12
Table 2.5 Percentage of each ethnic group giving final interviews and percentage
of the total number of final interviews by ethnic group.
Ethnicity
Numbers covered by
final interviews
(% of
sub- group n)
% of total final
interviews
by ethnic group
White (n=104) 72 (69.2) 54.55
Black Caribbean (n =35) 21 (60.0) 15.91
'Other black' (n=13) 8 (61.5) 6.06
Bangladeshi (n=11) 7 (63.6) 5.30
Pakistani (n=11) 9 (81.2) 6.82
Indian (n=2) 2 (100.0) 1.52
'Dual ethnicity' (n=17) 13 (76.5) 9.85
Total 132 (68.4) 100.0
Immediately following the final interview, a brief questionnaire overlapping with
items covered in the Labour Force Study, was completed wherever possible with
the young person or parent.
2.6.4 Numbers undertaking first and final interviews. 84 young people (43.5%)
and 62 parents/close relatives (32.1%) were interviewed using both the detailed
first and final schedules. The research team and DfEE did not plan that a majority
of young people or their parents would receive a detailed first as well as a detailed
final interview. In the original proposal, the first interviews had been seen as a brief
meeting to start a relationship between the research team and the young people and,
where possible, the family. However, fears about sample attrition led to a changed
policy of capturing as much data as possible from young people and parents in the
first interview using a detailed schedule.
2.6.5 Gap between interviews. Of necessity, the gap between first and final
interviews varied considerably. A significant time-lapse before interviews could
start was caused by recruitment (Phases 1 and 2). The result was that the period
between first and final interviews for the young people who had been excluded in
the Autumn Term 1999 ranged from 5 to 9 months; for young people excluded in
Spring Term, 2000, 10 to 12 months; and for young people excluded in the Summer
Term, 2000, 13 to 15 months.
2.7 Sample attrition. To minimise attrition, a policy of home visits was adopted
where young people and parents would not attend pre-arranged interviews in PRUs or

13
other sites of provision. Nevertheless the whereabouts or status of 52 young people
could not be established approximately two years post-exclusion and thus, outcomes
could not be ascertained for 27% of the sample.
2.8 Youth offending. The literature review (Appendix A, A8.2) indicated possible
links between youth offending and permanent exclusion. The DfEE steering group
was therefore keen to establish offending rates within the sample. Requests to access
the necessary Home Office databases to ascertain this were denied on grounds of the
Data Protection Act. An alternative source of data might have been information held
by the LEAs, but this proved very incomplete. Data on the young people's offending
therefore had to be collected in a fragmentary way from written records or from
questions posed to staff, parents or the young people themselves in interviews (see
Chapter 3, 3.5 and Chapter 7, 7.6)
2.9 Young people with whom contact was lost. Some young people were seriously
disengaged from or refusing local services. Home visits, sometimes following active
detective work, allowed the research team to make contact with and to track some of
these young people who could be described as 'lost' to LEAs and sometimes to all
statutory or voluntary services. Contact could be unexpectedly lost with others of the
young people. These factors explain why the whereabouts or status of 52 young
people could not be established in Months 23-24 post-exclusion, and why 61 young
people could not be covered by the final interview.
2.10 Methodology difficulties
2.10.1 Data. There was variation across The LEAs and agencies within The
LEAs in the extent and quality of data held [RO1]. Some records were very
detailed and provided access to rich descriptions of educational provision,
progress and attainment. Other LEAs were in the process of tightening up
systems. The finalisation of the sample was delayed when records revealed
inaccuracies for instance in date of birth; date of exclusion; address; telephone
numbers; first destination following exclusion and ethnic origin. A further
difficulty was the practice of LEAs to file away or destroy records once pupils
reached school leaving age.

14
2.10.2 Reaching the sample. Sometimes appointments were not kept
necessitating repeated attempts to ensure that first and/or final interviews took
place. This determined approach was successful in reaching many 'difficult to
reach' young people and parents for both first and final interviews. At times,
interviewing families and young people by telephone was the only practicable
method. For final interviews, a telephone interview was sometimes preferred by
young people who had met the research team previously and with whom there
was already a relationship maintained through the tracking process (see 2.6.2).
2.11 Analysis. A detailed coding frame was developed (see Appendix C) into which
information was entered for each of the young people, drawn from recordings of the
interviews conducted and proxy data. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) was used for quantitative analysis. In later chapters, for readability, the full
details of chi-squares are not given. The phrase 'statistically significant' denotes
obtained Pearson chi-squares significant at the .05 level while 'highly significant'
denotes obtained chi-squares significant at the .01 level or less. Qualitative data
reproduced in later chapters are drawn from detailed notes made from recordings and
from seventeen tapes of particular interest that were fully transcribed. Microsoft Excel
was used to construct the individual colour-coded trajectories of each of the young
people (Table D1 in Appendix D.).
2.12 Conclusion. Given the complexities and time-frame of the study, there were
inevitable constraints on the methodology, which have been described above. Despite
these, subsequent chapters report extensive new data that give rise to important
findings relevant to future policy and practice.

15
Chapter Three: The Young People's Experience Prior to Their
Permanent Exclusion
Key Findings
• Many of the young people had severe social difficulties beyond school.
• 40% were reported to have offended prior to their exclusion.
• Many young people had satisfactory relationships with some staff prior to
exclusion, although this was less likely for black students.
• Skilled staff could make any curriculum subject engaging but a majority of
the young people expressed a preference for sport and PE.
• Over 40% had identified special educational needs, most commonly, learning
difficulty mixed with behavioural difficulties.
• Permanent exclusion usually followed a long history of behavioural
challenges by the young person to the excluding school.
3.1 Introduction. Chapter 3 reports data on the young people's experience prior to
exclusion that might impact on their experiences and trajectory post-exclusion. The
chapter addresses aspects of the following Research Objectives:
• levels of pre- and post- exclusion support from families, professionals and
services [RO10];
• the young people's personal opinions, attitudes, expectations and other
individual factors relating to pre-exclusion [RO11];
• other relevant pre-exclusion institutional factors [RO12].
Home and social factors
3.2 Qualitative data on family circumstances. Supporting the findings of OFSTED
(1996) and other research (see Appendix A, A3.8), the data revealed complex and
often disadvantaging social factors impinging on the young people's lives outside
school, often throughout their lives, and sometimes linked by the young people and
the adults talking about them to the pupils' behaviour at school. Five examples are
given in Vignette 3.1.

16
Vignette 3.1: Home and social difficulties of some of the young people
1.) The mother of E17 (white male) reported that he had a violent father,
who was in prison for attempted rape and murder of his mother. The
mother said 'My son stayed in his room while this was going on. He would
have liked to have been able to do something about it, but couldn’t as his
father is so violent and would have probably killed him. This is something
which he does not find easy to live with – that he was unable to protect his
mother'.
2.)The sister of F16 (white male) was in prison for a high-profile murder
that attracted much press coverage. His mother went to a psychiatric
hospital after her daughter was jailed.
3.) C10 (white male) reported: 'My brother died and my parents separated.
My other brother became involved with drugs. I was stealing to fund drugs
– but I was never found out. My main problem was my mother. She just
couldn’t stand the sight of me. Also I would borrow money from people to
buy drugs and not be able to pay them back. I lost interest in school – my
own thoughts on life was: what’s the point?'
4.) E15 (white female): 'Everybody knew I was going that way because I
have took drugs since I was about ten or eleven...I think my Mam was
angry because I have turned out identical to the ways she was. I've been in
the same kids homes as her...I hate my grandparents...The only reason I
call my stepdad 'Da' is because we've been together for so long, but we
didn't get on because when he got my Ma he was 'I want you and not your
kid 'type of thing'. '
5.) E19 (white male) lived for many years with his mother and violent father
(presently in prison for murder). He witnessed and experienced regular
domestic violence. His mother was hospitalised following assaults by his
father... In response to one exclusion, his father ' threatened to put a
screwdriver in my head'. The council was said to have removed the family's
dogs. This hit him very badly. His moods were 'up and down' and sometimes
he physically harmed himself. He shared a bedroom with his big brother. He
was not allowed in when his brother had girlfriends back. He would get very
angry about it and sometime 'go berserk' (from interviews with EWO, young
person and mother).
3.3 Father's occupation before and after the exclusion. As an indicator of social
class of the young people, the questionnaire (see Appendix B [IV]) explored parental
occupation. Of the 76 out of the 193 young people's fathers (39.4%), on whom data
were available:
• 9 (11.8%) were in the professions;
• 48 (63.2%) were manual labourers or semi-skilled workers;

17
• 19 (25%) were believed to be unemployed.
This study found no association between father’s occupation and the young people's
qualifications at the end of Year 11 or degree of engagement two years after
exclusion.
3.4 Home circumstances. Data were available about home circumstances for 155 of
the 193 young people (80.3%). At the time of the exclusion, 95 of these young people
(61.3%) were not living with both their natural parents. However no association was
found between family-set up and the young people's engagement two years after
exclusion.
3.5 Youth offending prior to the permanent exclusion. Concern about the
reliability of data on youth offending was expressed in Chapter 2 and should be borne
in mind. Of 161 young people on whom there were data, 62 (38.5%) either self-
reported or were reported by an adult to have offended before their exclusion. Of the
14 children 'looked after' on whom there were data, 11 (78.6%) were said to have
offended compared to 51 out of 147 young people (34.7%) of those who had not been
in public care. There was a highly significant association between being 'looked after'
and offending. This was to be expected in the light of recent research (Hayden and
Dunne, 2001; Berridge et al., 2001). Qualitative data gave further insights. H11
believed that his offending linked to the company he was forced to keep in children's
homes where he mixed with other regular offenders. E15 (white female) also linked
her offending to being in care:
' I went into the care system at age 12 and that caused difficulties…I think it
more or less told me that it doesn’t matter what you do [including
offending], because at the end of the day you’re just going to get a ‘slap on
the wrist’. That’s the way I saw it then, until ...I was facing going to prison
and everything'.
No statistical association was found between other home circumstances and
offending. Males were more likely to offend than females: 55/134 male young people
(41.0%) were reported as offending compared to 7/27 (25.9%) of females. No
associations were established between youth offending and ethnicity or SEN. The
tendency for criminal activity to increase as young people enter their mid-teens
(Rutter, Giller and Hagell, 1998) is reflected in the data. In general, far more young

18
people excluded in Y10 were reported as having offended than those excluded in Y9
(although this did not obtain for LEAs D or E).
3.6 Drugs. In relation to drugs usage (as might have happened in relation to youth
offending), young people or their parents might have chosen to hide or to exaggerate
experiences, whilst staff interviewees' beliefs could have been faulty. Subject to these
caveats, of 121 of the 193 young people (62.7%) on whom there were data, 55
(45.5%) were reported as having some involvement with drugs, although it was not
possible to ascertain the nature or the extent of such involvement ('soft' or 'hard drugs;
frequent or infrequent use). No statistical association was found between drug taking
prior to exclusion and later engagement either at first destinations or two years post-
Exclusion. Nevertheless, drug-taking was seen as a major problem prior to and after
exclusion in inner-city LEA K (see Vignette 3.2) and other LEAs.
Vignette 3.2: Drug usage
1.) A senior member of staff at the PRU in LEA K said:
'We have a positive impact on most referrals except ‘Class A’ drug users. As
a team we have a huge amount of experience in dealing with kids on
cocaine/heroin, which have now become first choice drugs instead of
cannabis for many, because it has become very cheap. Once addicted, their
behaviour is very erratic, they are not laid back/spaced out as you’d expect.
Rather, they lose all inhibitions, so that when they explode it is without
restraint, frequent use of violence and use of knives. Our policy is to work
with them but the reality is that their attendance is poor, they are up all night
scoring, they can’t stay awake and they are incapable, mentally and
physically, of taking advantage of teaching and support'.
2.) C10 (white female): 'I was expelled in year 9 for ‘doing drugs in school’.
People said I was giving out drugs to people, but I wasn’t; I was having
them for myself. I was bringing them on to the premises, having them in the
toilets, then going to lessons - if I actually turned up - out of my face.
Teachers got sick of me. I was mouthy. I used to swear, storm out of class.
They used to put me in either isolation or detention.'
3.) C13 (white male): 'In the children’s homes I took ‘weed‘ ‘liquid gas’
‘aerosols’ ‘lighter fuel’, anything. But not now'.
4.) In LEA F a group of boys were permanently excluded for smoking
cannabis on the school tennis courts shortly before their GCSE exams.

19
School-related factors
3.7 Introduction. The literature review in Appendix A (e.g. section A3.2) discusses
school organisation, ethos and curriculum prioritisation and possible links to the
increasing disaffection of some pupils. In the light of this, it was important to study
and to compare the interviewees' views on prior and post-exclusion experiences. This
might highlight factors explaining positive post-exclusion outcomes.
3.8 Relationships at school. Of the 151 young people (78.2%) on whom there were
relevant data: 14 young people (9.3%) were reported as having a satisfactory
relationship with all their teachers and 86 (57.0%) with some teachers. It was common
for young people and their parents to report 'getting on well' with certain teachers,
who were then described as having attributes to be found also in staff encountered in
post-exclusion provision. A28 reported: 'Many teachers were OK, some not. Those
that I didn’t get on with were strict - they made big things out of minor incidents.
Those that were OK, were ‘safe’ and more understanding.' Family reputations could
lead to negative labelling (e.g. F12, female, whose brother had previously been
permanently excluded from the school that excluded her).
3.9 Ethnicity and relationships with teachers. The literature review (see A2.5.2)
suggests a disproportionate number of children from some minority ethnic groups
having difficulties with their teachers. The study data supported this (note: data were
not available on the ethnicity of the staff in the excluding schools).
Table 3.1 Ethnicity and relationships between young people and staff
Cited satisfactory relationships with teachers: Data
available
on:
with all
(% in brackets)
with some
(% in brackets)
none
(% in brackets)
White 86 7 (8.1) 58 (67.4) 21 (24.4)
Black
Caribbean
23 0 (0.0) 12 (52.2) 11 (47.8)
'Other black' 9 1 (11.1) 3 (33.3) 5 (55.6)
Bangladeshi 7 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 7 (100)
Pakistani 9 3 (33.3) 5 (55.6) 1 (11.1)
Indian 1 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100)
'Dual ethnicity' 16 3 (18.7) 8 (50.0) 5 (31.3)
151 14 (9.3) 86 (56.9) 51 (33.8)
There was a highly significant association between ethnicity and relationships
between young people and teachers. As can be seen in Table 3.1, relationships

20
between black Caribbean and Bangladeshi pupils and their teachers were reported as
less satisfactory than for other groups.
Vignette 3.3: Two young people from minority ethnic groups.
A21 (black Caribbean male). He received two fixed-term exclusions for
fighting. He felt that these had 'No impact, I just chilled out.' he said his
Exclusion was for confrontation with a lunchtime supervisor after pushing
into a dinner queue with friends and playing games. 'It was not fair, it was
a minor incident'. Mother felt 'the school treated my son harshly.' A21
complained that prior to exclusion: ' I didn’t feel supported, I felt
victimised. It was a small school, mixed sexes and races. It was
discriminatory in its treatment of pupils.' His relationships with staff were
'not good. They didn’t listen to my point of view. They picked on me and
were racist. This means they focused on black kids when telling pupils
off.' His relationships with students were 'good - everyone was ‘safe’' He
liked having friends and the football'. He identifies that there were 'lots of
minor problems in class, talking and stuff'. There was input from
behaviour support teachers, he was put on report, set targets and given
weekly talks. There were also 'lots of letters and phone calls home.'
H6 (black Caribbean male) was 'statemented' as EBD when 6 years old ,
went to an 'adjustment unit' and then to a mainstream primary school. He
was permanently excluded in Y6 but went to a mainstream secondary
school where he was closely followed and supported by an LSA. After
violent outbursts and wider behaviour difficulties, he was permanently
excluded and sent to a residential EBD school. Mother spoke highly of the
staff's efforts there. Staff at the school reported that they were wary of the
allegations of a racist and sexual nature that H6 made against them. He
was excluded in Y10 for violence.
3.10 Relationships with peers. Interviewees were more positive about their
relationships with other pupils. Of 150 young people on whom there were data:
• 43 (29%) were felt to get on with all the pupils at their school;
• 82 (58%) with some;
• and 25(17%) with no-one.
This pattern was consistent across ethnicities. The qualitative data indicated pupils
experiencing problems with other pupils in different gangs, either race-orientated (e.g.
Asian versus white and black in LEA F) or geographically-orientated (e.g. LEAs A, H
and E):
'After another 6 months out of school, I gained a place at [name] High School
but I was the only Asian chap there really, and there was a lot of racial abuse
going on. This led to fights' (G13, male Indian).

21
'You go out the school via entrances according to race (regulated by the
pupils)' (A11, white male).
'He did not mix with others, who were mainly from the East of the city. There
was a big East/West divide' (Teacher in charge of PRU about E20, white
male).
3.11 Responses to curriculum (quantitative). Jones et al. (1998) and Cole et al.
(1998) draw attention to pupil preferences for certain aspects of the curriculum and
how these might link to degrees of disaffection and behaviour difficulties in class. The
study's findings were unsurprising in the light of this research. Some of the young
people enjoyed and attained well in more than one of the areas identified in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Preferences for /attainment in areas of the curriculum
Curriculum area:
n=
'expressed
preference for
and/or attained
well in...'
%
Academic (e.g.
Maths,
Geography)
149 39 26.2
Creative 149 38 25.5
Practical 140 26 18.6
Sport /physical
education
140 61 43.6
3.12 Qualitative views on curriculum. The contrasting responses seen in Table 3.2
were developed by the qualitative data. Liking a subject seemed to relate to the pupil's
perceptions of the teachers' attitudes and skills. When asked what was enjoyable at
school, F19 replied: 'It was OK at [the 2nd Secondary School] for the first year: I liked
Art, Maths, Music – I had teachers who listened and understood'. D17 (white male)
said: 'I liked Mr. ‘X’ for woodwork, and Mr ‘Y’ (names given ) the pastoral year
head. I didn’t like anyone else. They did 'my head in’…particularly in Music'. In
similar vein, B5 reported: 'I liked Maths, Art and Science, I had a nice English teacher
which helped to keep me on track in this'. Student views differentiated between
different aspects of subjects, in particular a dislike of formal writing, which many
pupils found difficult:
'I couldn’t write, that’s why I messed about' (E5, white male).
Pupils had perceptions of useful and irrelevant subjects (see Vignette 3.4). Motivating
pupils in subjects such as religious education, a modern foreign language or history

22
can often be more difficult when these are seen as 'irrelevant'. An Outreach Teacher
said in relation to E16 (white male):
'He enjoyed and worked well in Maths and Science. I see this as a ‘common
attitude’ that boys have got - he was quite happy to sort of try at Maths and
Science. He didn’t see why he should do Art, French and English and that is
where some of his problems occurred - in those subjects where he didn’t see
the point.'
In short, themes identified in other studies were again identified but clear messages
did not emerge.
Vignette 3.4 : Disaffection and curriculum
The mother of B18 (white male,Y11) said 'He was a bright lad ...and
was not causing bother in most lessons' but in Y8 'He got a cocky
attitude, he was not too bothered about doing his work.' B18 said of the
curriculum, 'I liked the physical and doing things. Not the writing.
Electronics, Graphic Art, I couldn’t see the point in French and RE.' By
Y10 he said he had 'got in with' an anti-school peer group, was 'bunking
off and messing around.' In Y11 he received a two day fixed-term
exclusion for fighting. Then he rowed with the French teacher and he
was excluded.
His mother said she was 'not bothered': he was 'better out of school. If
he is not going to learn what's the point of being there?' She said her son
was 'well pleased that it happened. He was ready to leave. He has settled
down well and it's made life a lot easier.'
B18 said he 'was disappointed at first. I thought I would manage to
see out my school days...Then –great! Straight into work making money
with my uncle. I couldn’t be bothered with school after that, there was no
point.' The family did not appeal against the exclusion. Mother said: 'I
just knew that by then [my son] had really taken against the school. I
knew it would be a complete waste of time… He would do something to
get out again (if he got back in).'
3.13 Special Educational Needs [SENs]. Some research (see Appendix A, A3.2.3)
has linked pupils' difficulties with learning with their disaffection and exclusion.
Often these learning difficulties lead to assessment for special educational needs and
placement on the then-current Code of Practice stages (DFE, 1994f). It was therefore
unsurprising that of 145 young people on whom firm data were available, 61 (42.1%)
were reported as having special educational needs (see Table 3.3). The SENs were
described as learning difficulties, behavioural difficulties or a combination of these
two.

23
Table 3.3: The young people, special educational needs and the Code of Practice
Code of Practice Stage Frequency %
Stage 1 or 2 9 6.2
Stage 3 25 17.2
Stage 4 (being assessed
for statement)
2 1.4
'Statemented' 25 17.2
No SENs 84 57.9
TOTAL 145 100.0
The qualitative data indicated that some young people saw learning difficulties as a
major factor in their pre-exclusion experience (see Vignette 3.5).
Vignette 3.5: Learning difficulties.
When asked of his difficulties and how he coped, E5 (white male)
identified writing and said: 'I used to fight and skip school.' He claimed
that he ' didn’t get one bit of help from junior or senior schools. They just
expect you to sit in a class of 30 with one teacher and do your work, and if
you can’t do your work ‘cos you can’t write, then they just get annoyed
with you. ‘Normal’ schools are bad, I don’t like them, they expect you to
go straight into school and your parents to have taught you the basics, but
not all parents do...It’s not fair just sticking kids in school and then making
them feel thick, because that’s how I felt… I didn’t want to do my work,
and I couldn’t do it, and I looked like an idiot if I tried to do it'.
G3 (dual ethnicity male) said: 'I got left behind with school-work after the
fixed-term exclusion in Y8 [school 1]. I never caught up. I fell more
behind, so I ‘couldn’t hack it’. We left [the area] - moved house. I tried to
get in at the nearest school – [school 2] but they said it was full. We
appealed, but did not get place. I was out of school for eight or nine
months during this time. There was no schoolwork set – I did nothing -
just stayed at home. I started at [school 3] inY9...The worst school I have
ever been to. I found the work very hard and was no longer good at maths,
I was so far behind. There was no extra help given.'
This study found no statistical association between SEN prior to exclusion and
outcomes two years later.
3.14 Pre-exclusion difficulties. DfEE (1999b) have warned against exclusions for
relatively minor reasons. It was therefore important to investigate the behavioural
histories of the young people and possible links with reasons for their exclusion
before later looking at possible associations with outcomes. From data on 158 YPs,
142 (89.9%) were reported to have experienced problems and usually to have
presented behavioural challenges to their schools before their exclusion. Young

24
people and parent interviews suggested that some of the young people had presented
difficulties at school from a very early age. F11 talked of the naughty streak in him
from nursery school onwards. The mother of G8 recounted:
'My son has had problems with his behaviour throughout his time at school. I
first thought he could be dyslexic because he was slow with his reading and
writing ...He becomes bored easily when he does not have enough to do and this
is when he becomes disruptive. Had constant problems at school.'
Many interviewees (e.g. Re-integration Teachers, LEA F; PRU staff in LEA B;
outreach teacher in LEA E) talked of young people presenting a catalogue of low-
level irritating, disruptive behaviour over a period of years. The descriptor 'dripping
tap pupil' was used (Re-integration Teachers, LEA F). The accumulation of these
behaviours placed these young people in jeopardy of exclusion sometimes for a
relatively minor offence seen as 'the last straw'.
3.15 Pre-exclusion interventions. For 84 out of 148 young people (56.8%) for whom
data were available, pre-exclusion interventions were said to have been made at
school. More detailed data were available for 55 young people. Behaviour and/or
social skills programmes were the most common (19 cases: 34.5%). An educational
intervention was a close second (18 cases: 32.7%) followed by counselling and/or
mentoring (10 cases: 18.2%) and respite (short-term removal from class) for school
and pupil (8 cases: 14.6%). From data available for 68 cases, it was felt that these
interventions were appropriate and/or effective for less than a quarter (15 young
people: 22.1%). Some parents and young people recognised the efforts made by the
excluding school to avoid exclusion (Vignette 3.6).
Vignette 3.6: Parents' appreciation of excluding schools' efforts
'My son’s school was brilliant. He messed up, he was given a million
chances, loads of help and he still messed up. It was same story at his next
school [when re-integrated] (parent of K5, white male).
'At middle school there was a very understanding headteacher…they
arranged for [my son] to choose lessons, based on where he felt there were
difficulties. He worked in the library when he was not in lessons. This was a
good idea, but it came too late' (parent of E17, white male).

25
F11 (white male) said, 'I had a good head of year, he did a lot of talking and
listening to me, but I didn’t listen.' Links were established for the young
person to go part-time to the local EBD school to use their outreach service.
He spent one day in class there with a ‘treat’ of one day a week doing
outdoor pursuits (rock climbing, canoeing) for over a year.
'The school was so good...They gave me so many chances… I regret it in
some ways...but I saw red' (B17, white male ).
'The school's main response was to call us in: he [B17] would usually listen
to us and do as we asked. He did not want to let us down. I would sit in class
sometimes. The school had been patient. This was the last straw. His
behaviour was getting more dangerous' (foster-carer of B17).
Sometimes the young people were not sure who the helper was, but still appreciated
it. D19 (white female) praised an unknown support worker 'because it was good to
know that you could talk to someone.' Conversely, interventions could meet with a
disappointing response. A12 (black Caribbean male) talked about the weekly anger
management course the behaviour support service arranged for him:
'It was rubbish, there was no need. To me it was making me do less
work…it was useless, a long way to travel and made me not want to go
again… they did silly things, like at primary school, writing down
‘love’ and ‘hate’… counting to 10 seconds, and I’d tell the teachers it
ain’t about 10 seconds, I can control my anger. I know what I’m
speaking. If I get angry it’s not because I can’t control it, its because
something’s happened. I did nothing wrong to go on this course. The
teachers needed it, not me.'
Pastoral Support Programmes (DfEE, 1999a) were still in their infancy around the
time of the young people's exclusions and did not figure in the evidence collected.
3.16 Exclusions prior to the permanent exclusion (quantitative). The number of
fixed-term exclusions experienced by the young people prior to their exclusion, are
shown in Table 3.4. The figures in this table are an indicator of the difficulties
experienced by the schools prior to making the exclusions. When put with the study's
qualitative data (see Vignette 3.6 above), they do suggest that many schools tried hard
to delay and to avoid permanent exclusion. From data available on 158 young people,
35 (24.1%) had been permanently excluded previously from one or more schools prior
to the exclusion.

26
Table 3.4 Numbers of fixed-term exclusions prior to the exclusion
Number of fixed-
term exclusions
Frequency Percent
4 or more or 'lots of' 80 52.0
2 or 3 27 17.5
1 29 18.8
0 18 11.7
TOTAL 154 100.0
3.17 Fixed-term exclusions and later engagement. There was a statistically
significant association between numbers of fixed-term exclusions experienced by the
young people and their degree of engagement in education/training /employment or
disengagement/unemployment two years after exclusion. The young people who
received a greater number of fixed-term exclusions tended to be those who were
disengaged two years after exclusion.
Summary
3.18 Review of Chapter 3. The data reported sometimes did and sometimes did not
impact on the post-Exclusion trajectories of the young people. It has been noted that :
• Disadvantaging social factors. Many of the young people have disadvantaging
social and other difficulties beyond their school (including for a minority,
traumatic events in the home) that probably affect the way they have
responded to school-life. In many cases, these difficulties continue post-
Exclusion, for example drug taking is seen in at least one LEA as a serious
inhibitor of engagement in education.
• Youth offending. About 2 in 5 of the sample were reported to have offended
prior to exclusion, and 11 out of 14 (79%) of the small sample of 'looked after'
children. No links were found between offending and ethnicity.
• Relationships with staff. Many young people had satisfactory relationships
with at least some of their teachers and peers in the schools that excluded
them, again holding out hope for future relationships with staff, showing the
right attributes and skills in post-exclusion provision.
• Minority ethnic group relationships. Black Caribbean, other black pupils and
Bangladeshi young people were less likely to report satisfactory relationships
with teachers at the excluding school.
• Response to curriculum. Skilled staff can make any subject acceptable to the
young people and different young people preferred different subjects.

27
However, certain subjects, notably PE, seemed more attractive to more of the
young people than others, often deemed irrelevant, in particular modern
foreign languages and history.
• Special educational needs. Lack of proficiency (e.g. in writing skills) 'showing
the young people up' in front of peers probably linked to many young people's
disaffection and disruptive behaviour. Over 40% the sample had identified
special educational needs (literacy or numeracy difficulties or behavioural
difficulties or a combination of these factors).
• Exclusion follows a history of difficult behaviour. Permanent exclusion usually
happens after a history of behavioural challenges presented by the young
person rather than for a one-off incident, and almost half of the total sample
had received interventions to try to lessen difficulties although in most cases
these were viewed as ineffective.
• Prior fixed-term exclusions. About four out of five of the young people had
received two or more fixed-term exclusions prior to exclusion. Frequency of
fixed-term exclusions was associated with disengagement from education and
training two years post-exclusion.
• Parent views. Parents sometimes praised the excluding schools for the help
and understanding shown; others were critical of schools' lack of assistance
and tolerance. Racist attitudes in staff were alleged by a few black and by a
few white parents.

28
Chapter Four: From Exclusion to Offer of First Placement
Key