Secondary education has had notable reform over the past one hundred years. Some reforms relating to secondary education include a change to the examination system at the end of compulsory school leaving, the change to the school leaving age, area-based initiatives to raise standards in inner-city schools and incentive payments to encourage disadvantaged students to stay on in the education system beyond the age of compulsory schooling (McNally, 2005:287). However, mainstream schooling is not the only opportunity for students. For many students, mainstream schooling may not necessarily be suitable for individual needs, meaning they may not achieve to their full potential within this particular education setting. This leads us to question, “is there an alternative?”. The term ‘alternative education’ in its broadest sense covers all activities that fall outside of the traditional school system (Aron, 2006:3). Key examples of alternative education include home schooling, Montessori schools and Pupil Referral Units. Due to the fact that alternative education is usually associated with students who have been unsuccessful in the past with mainstream schooling, many alternative schools are regarded to be much poorer quality than the traditional school system, however, due to the fact that they are challenged to motivate and educate disengaged students, many alternative education settings and programmes are highly valued for their innovation and creativity (Aron, 2006:3). The one key forms of alternative education that is going to be discussed is alternative provision and pupil referral units.
Alternative provision (AP) is defined as an organisation where pupils engage in timetabled, educational activities away from mainstream school and school staff (Taylor, 2012). Furthermore, children may also be placed into a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) if mainstream schooling does not meet their personal needs. Alternative Provision was introduced in 1994 as a response to national expressed concerns regarding the social and educational outcomes of students that had been excluded due to challenging behaviour (Jalali and Morgan, 2018). The term ‘pupil referral unit’ was formally introduced within the Department of Education Circular Number 11/94, ‘The Education by LEAs of Children Otherwise than at school’ (Hill, 1997). There are different types of PRUs that cater for various different needs. Some settings cater for children with medical, social, emotional, behavioural needs, or even those who have not actually been excluded from school, but are having difficulty finding an appropriate provision in mainstream schools (Munn et al.2000). Many children that are referred to PRUs and AP come from the most deprived of backgrounds, they often come from chaotic homes in which issues such as drinking, drug taking, mental health issues, domestic violence and family breakdown is present (Taylor, 2012). It has been found that children that attend APs and PRUs are twice as likely than the average pupil to qualify for free school meals and that two thirds of pupils within PRU are male (Taylor, 2012).
While for some students, AP can be a temporary measure, for many students’ alternative provisions and pupil referral units may provide their full-time education. School exclusions have held a focal point for concern and educational reform for both primary and secondary level (Meo and Parker, 2004). In 1997, the New Labour administration established national targets for the reduction of the number of permanent school exclusions by September 2002. Initiatives were launched that were aimed to provide all excluded students- who were likely to be out of mainstream schools for longer than fifteen days- with full time education (Meo and Parker, 2004). These targets were set in order to create emphasis on the speedy reintegration of excluded pupils back into mainstream schooling while also creating increased levels of accountability engendered by the collection and publication of data relative to the educational achievement of children being educated out of school (DfEE, 1999).
An alternative to secondary education:
Pupil Referral Units are for children from the school age of reception through to the school leaving age of 16. Alternative Provision begins once the pupil is out of mainstream schooling for all or part of the time (Munn et al. 2000). It is important to note that PRUs are not ‘special schools’, children with Special Educational needs may not be sent to a referral unit, rather an establishment that can provide more suitable care for their needs. Pupil referral units are funded by the Local Authority and due to the fact that Local authorities have a duty to provide suitable full-time education for every child, PRUs fulfil this obligation. Pupil Referral Units and Alternative Provision are not required to teach the full national curriculum. They are expected to provide a broad and balanced education that covers as much of the curriculum as possible. It is argued that it is more essential within PRUs and AP education that they reengage children with education. It is key that their social and emotional needs are met and their behaviour is to improve, this can therefore be at the expense of the academic rigour (Taylor, 2012). In 2012, it was found that only 1.4% of students achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C including maths and English compared to their peers within mainstream school at 53.4% (Taylor,2012). This therefore demonstrates that while Pupil referral units and Alternative Provision are an alternative to education, they seem to offer support in areas which mainstream schools lack such as emotional wellbeing and behaviour management, which places academic achievement at an expense.
In terms of practicality, it is questionable as to whether PRU programmes could be a full alternative to secondary education. Due to the fact that Pupil referral Units are a particular type of education setting that is directly aimed at young people of compulsory school age who, for different reasons, have been removed from mainstream and special schooling (Meo and Parker, 2006). However it has been expressed about the quality of the alternative education provision offered within Pupil Referral Units to pupils excluded from mainstream schools (Ofsted , 1995: cited in Michael and Frederickson, 2013) and the little improvement over the time has been apparent, including recent reports that have identified that these particular settings were still not providing education to the quality and expectations required that they are required to meet when tending to the needs of vulnerable children (Michael and Frederickson, 2013). This highlights the assumption that PRUs may not be a full practical alternative to secondary education as it, at times, does not seem to always offer suitable education for those it is targeted to.
Effectiveness
Alternative Provision, such as PRUs, have increasingly been regarded as potentially better place than mainstream schools to provide education that is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable young people (de Jong and Griffiths, 2006). There are many qualities to this alternative form of education that positively benefit the students that attend them. It can be argued that PRUs offer a differing level of care and support than teachers within mainstream schools have to offer. Relationships with teachers- both academic and social-emotional, with teachers recognised as providing valuable external support as well as promoting intrinsic motivation to learn (Michael and Frederickson, 2013). It is further argued by both Hill (1997) and Lloyd and O’Regan (1999) that the positive relationships with teachers was a predominant theme identified by young people who attend AP as promoting positive outcomes. Teacher relationships with students is highlighted to be highly important as teacher support often encourages increased levels of motivation, more success and less disruptive or passive behaviour due to frustration and feelings of low academic competence (Everston and Emmer 1982; Rayner 1998; Thuen and Bru 2009). This evidently highlights the effectiveness of PRU programmes as they offer a chance to students that may find it challenging to form relationships with teaching staff through traditional schooling.
In contrast, it is widely understood that while Alternative Provision and Pupil Referral Units may be effective for aiding students who are unable to attend mainstream education, it is recognised that the outcomes for students educated outside mainstream education are poorer than that of their peers (Pirrie and Macleod, 2009). There are copious reasons behind why students who attend AP and PRUs may not achieve like their peers in mainstream education. One key example is that students often arrive at these programmes unplanned or mid-term. This therefore immediately puts the student at a disadvantage, leaving them more likely to fail academically (Yell et al. 2009; Jalali and Morgan, 2018). Furthermore, Ofsted (2006) highlighted increasing concerns on the quality of PRU provision with their findings highlighting issues relating to behaviour management, poor educational standards, poor quality resources, a lack of formal quality assurance processes, low expectations and a lack of strategies for reintegration. Equally, it has been found that absence rates within these schools are often a lot higher. With the attendance rate being more erratic, it is less likely for the students to be able to achieve to their full potential. Therefore, due to the combination of poor-quality provision and an unpredictable study body contributes to the academic achievement and negative life trajectory of this population (Brown, 2011; Jalali and Morgan, 2018). This offers doubt into whether PRUs are in fact as effective as they were originally aimed to be. While the aims of APs and PRUs are to offer a second chance for students who do not fit with traditional schooling, the execution of this version of education may not be providing students with the most effective teaching and care.
References:
Taylor, C. (2012). Improving Alternative Provision. London: Department for Education
Munn P, Lloyd G and Cullen M (2000) Alternatives to exclusion from school. London. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Hill, R. (1997). Pupil Referral Units: “Are they Effective in Helping Schools Work with Children who have Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties?”. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 2(1), 28-36.
Michael, S., & Frederickson, N. (2013). Improving pupil referral unit outcomes: pupil perspectives. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 18(4), 407-422
Aron, L.Y. (2006) An Overview of Alternative Education. Urban Institute.
Meo, A. and Parker, A. (2004) Teachers, teaching and educational exclusion: Pupil Referral Units and pedagogic practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8 (1), pp. 103–120.
McNally, S. (2005) Reforms to Schooling in the UK: A Review of Some Major Reforms and their Evaluation. German Economic Review, 6 (3), pp. 287–296.
Gov.co.uk(n.d.) Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England, Academic Year 2018/19 [Internet]. Available from https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-in-england#dataBlock-fa3fe099-9727-4dee-a510-c3b7f64e60a8-tables. [Accessed 6th May 2021]
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999a) Social Inclusion: Pupil Support. Circular 11/99 [http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/guidanceonthelaw/10–99/].
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999b) Social Inclusion: Pupil Support. Circular 10/99 [http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/guidanceonthelaw/10–99/].
Jalali, R. and Morgan, G. (2018) ‘They won’t let me back.’ Comparing student perceptions across primary and secondary Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 23 (1), pp. 55–68.
Pirrie, A. and Macleod, G. (2009) Locked out: researching destinations and outcomes for pupils excluded from special schools and Pupil Referral Units. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 14 (3), pp. 185–194.
0 Comments