Session Information
05 SES 12 A, New Perspectives on School Exclusion Drop-Out and Participation
Paper Session
Contribution
Children and young people in care are one of the lowest performing groups educationally (Melkman, 2020); which is closely linked with their poor employment, housing and mental health post-16 outcomes (Forsman, Brännström, Vinnerljung, & Hjern, 2016). The English government has put education at the top of its agenda for children in care, introducing additional statutory guidelines and 'Virtual Schools' to promote children’s educational progress (DfE, 2018). Nevertheless, there remains the high risk of children in care to be suspended from school, undermining their chances of closing the attainment gap, and likely to affect negatively other life domains (Scherr, 2007).
Indeed, these exclusionary practices have drawn much scientific and public interest, due to their controversial nature. On the one hand, many educators rely on exclusionary discipline to cope with challenging or disruptive behaviour, manage their classes, and ensure a safe and undisturbed learning environment (Losen, 2013). On the other hand, however, children subjected to exclusionary discipline may lose educational opportunities and miss classroom time both of which can be detrimental to the children’s educational development and bonding with the school environment (Noltemeyer, Ward, & Mcloughlin, 2015). This is especially true for youth placed in substitute care, for whom the state took on the responsibility of ensuring their safety and well-being because they were exposed to extreme risks in the home environment including abuse, neglect, or other adversities (Bullock, Courtney, Parker, Sinclair, & Thoburn, 2006). For these young people, whose life course from early childhood to young adulthood is marked by considerable adversity and disadvantage, the effects of out-of-school suspensions may be particularly profound (Kothari et al., 2018). And yet, there is a paucity of research on this issue and we therefore know very little about how out-of-school suspension is experienced by children in care or the factors that contribute to their higher risk of being suspended.
It is important to note that the disciplinary policy that dominates the discourse in England and in the US, is that of “zero tolerance” or “school safety” (Skiba & Losen, 2016). This perspective situates the problem within the child, so that a personal pathology that is reflected, for example, in a lack of respect for rules or lack of motivation for learning, leads the child to deliberately engage in problematic behaviors. Suspensions are thus aimed at ensuring the school is a physically and emotionally safe learning environment. These notions are based on the Deterrence Theory (Gibbs, 1975) and the idea that inadequate behavior can be prevented through punishments, by making disobedience so expensive for the individual, that he will simply refrain from it. In contrast, normative and relational perspectives suggest that compliance and positive student behavior depend upon commitment to authority, including perceptions of fairness, legitimacy and mutual respect, and emphasize the centrality of meaningful teacher-student relationships (Tyler, 1990; Way, 2011). Such notions may be particularly relevant for understanding what drives exclusions among youth in care, given their disrupted and often adverse relational history. However, there are very few studies that have sought out the perspectives of young people in care concerning their experiences of out-of-school suspension and that can inform this discussion.
In order to address this gap in current knowledge, the current study examined the experiences of youth in care who had been suspended from school in England. Two central questions guided this study: 1) Who are the young people suspended from school and why?; and 2) How do the young people and the key adults in their lives perceive suspensions?
Method
The study draws on 34 semi-structured interviews with young people in care (9 ; ages 14-18), from five local authorities in England, who had been suspended from secondary school in the previous two years, as well their foster carers (9), social workers (8) designated teachers (3), and Virtual School Heads (5). Among the young people, interviewees were selected to reflect the higher propensity for school exclusion among specific subgroups (e.g., being male or of an ethnic minority background). Accordingly, young interviewees included four males and five females; five youth who were White British and three of Black African or Black Caribbean descent; and two young people who were in special education schools. Three young people had experienced 1-3 suspensions and six had experienced 10 or more suspensions. The content categories in the interview protocol included the perceptions of young people and key adults regarding youths’ experience of school and relationships with educational staff; the experience of suspension, its antecedents and consequences; and school’s response to the suspension. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and lasted 40-90 minutes. Data was coded and organised with the assistance of the NVivo software analysis package. In analyzing the interviews, a qualitative thematic analysis approach was used (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identity patterns and themes within the data. First, an incident-by-incident coding technique was employed, in which every portion of the interview transcript was read and coded for important themes. This was followed by a focused coding process, during which the incident codes were re-read and analyzed in order to identify larger themes (Charmaz, 2006). Audit trail and peer debriefing was used to achieve trustworthiness and promote rigorousness (Morse, 2015). The audit trail consisted of detailed documentation throughout the research. Excerpts of raw data were attached to all interpretations and the peer debriefing process was documented in writing. Peer debriefing was conducted by two researchers in several stages of the thematic data analysis. All interview material was analyzed separately by each of the researchers and subsequently joint meetings were held to review the themes and patterns together and resolve any discrepancies by discussion until consensus was reached.
Expected Outcomes
As expected, all interviewees came from very difficult backgrounds and had experienced a wide range of adversities. They and the adults around them emphasized that immense impact these experiences had on their subsequent learning and overall development. Relatedly, various emotional and behavioural difficulties had been reported that impeded on their ability to concentrate in school. Despite the great importance of school for these young people, it was generally experienced as a hostile environment where they felt they were not listened to, cared for or respected. These feelings marked a breakdown of communication between the children and the school and were a central factor in the process that led to their exclusion. Based on Attachment theory, these dynamics are discussed as reflecting the failure of educational staff to respond to the young peoples’ attachment needs and provide them with a secure base. Specifically, Schofield and Beek’s (2005) Secure Base model for foster carers’ parenting, and its five dimensions (availability, sensitivity, acceptance, co-operation and family membership) is offered as a useful perspective to frame teachers’ relationships with young people in care and other troubled youth. The findings suggest that in educating young people in care, schools should place greater emphasis on relationship-based approaches and child and foster carer participation in decision making processes in order to support their efforts to succeed in spite of their difficult backgrounds.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bullock, R., Courtney, M. E., Parker, R., Sinclair, I., & Thoburn, J. (2006). Can the corporate state parent? Adoption and Fostering, 30(4), 6-19. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage. DfE (2018). Promoting the education of looked‐after children and previously looked‐after children: Statutory guidance for local authorities. London. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/683556/Promoting_the_education_of_looked-after_children_and_ previously_looked-after_children.pdf Forsman, H., Brännström, L., Vinnerljung, B., & Hjern, A. (2016). Does poor school performance cause later psychosocial problems among children in foster care? Evidence from national longitudinal registry data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 57, 61–71, 10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.06.006 Gibbs, Jack. 1975. Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier. Kothari, B. H., Godlewski, B., McBeath, B., McGee, M., Waid, J., Lipscomb, S., & Bank, L. (2018). A longitudinal analysis of school discipline events among youth in foster care. Children and youth services review, 93, 117-125, 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.017 Losen, D. J. (2013). Discipline policies, successful schools, racial justice, and the law. Family Court Review, 51(3), 388-400. 10.1111/fcre.12035 Melkman, E. P. (2020). Educational trajectories of children in care across the early education and primary school years: A national cohort study in England. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(6), 720-732, 10.1037/ort0000505 Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224-240 Scherr, T. G. (2007). Educational experiences of children in foster care: Meta-analyses of special education, retention and discipline rates. School Psychology International, 28(4), 419-436, 10.1177/0143034307084133 Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2005). Providing a secure base: Parenting children in long-term foster family care. Attachment & human development, 7(1), 3-26. Skiba, R. J., & Losen, D. J. (2016). From reaction to prevention: Turning the page on school discipline. American Educator, 39(4), 4. Tyler, Thomas. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Way, S. M. (2011). School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3), 346-375.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.