School exclusion has a considerable impact on the emotional wellbeing and education of young people and can reduce their life chances. The Timpson Review of School Exclusion in 2019 found that children with special educational needs, from black African Caribbean backgrounds or who have had contact with social care services are most at risk of exclusion. Pupils excluded from school before the age of 12 have been found to be four times more likely to be imprisoned during adulthood (McAra & McVie, 2010).
Coram and Clement James Community Centre in the Grenfell area of west London have worked together with funding from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to provide a pioneering child and family focused advocacy model to support young people at risk of exclusion. The service brings together one-to-one support from a Clement James advocate, with legal and therapeutic advice provided through weekly case consultations with Coram.
Significant challenges
The complex needs of many children who have accessed our service directly hinder their ability to achieve their educational potential. Some of the young people presented with significant challenges around cognitive developmental delay; mental health problems; sensory processing difficulties; emotional and behaviour challenges; autism and ADHD.
Our inclusion and advocacy model was developed through the identification of a need for connection and trust in the relationships, which is established through the Clement James children’s advocate who builds relationships with the families and schools. The project has offered an opportunity to provide psychological and legal advice across a broad spectrum of issues sometimes for the same child, including:
-
School suspensions and permanent exclusions
-
Permanent exclusion representation at governing body hearings
-
A school or council failing to address a child’s special needs and failure to carry out education health and care (EHC) needs assessment
-
Failure/refusal to provide an EHC Plan and supporting the advocate to challenge this
-
Negotiating with the council over the details of an EHC plan
-
Seeking alternatives to school (eg home education) and extra support (eg counselling)
-
Human rights aspects of a council’s education provision, particularly dealing with challenging behaviour or permanent exclusion
-
Associated discrimination issues across the various protected characteristics within the Equality Act 2010.
The project has empowered the advocate to seek the rights and entitlements for the children accessing the service. Possible reasons for the challenges at school are explored and if there may be previously unidentified developmental, emotional or systemic needs, recommendations are made in both the legal and therapeutic contexts.
A year on from implementation, our pilot has showed promising results on children’s wellbeing and life chances both through standardised measures and case studies (see case study, below). Scores for post-intervention goal based outcome measures were significantly higher than those before the intervention. Goals broadly fitted into four categories relating to improving school exclusions and discipline at school; academic performance; communication between schools and families; and mental health. The analysis of qualitative feedback also supported these positive outcomes.
In this wraparound model, families receive expert knowledge from legal and mental health specialists through a community advocate that feels safe and accessible. The skills of the advocate and the community centre they work within provides culturally and community orientated support for vulnerable young people who deserve positive life chances.
-
Thanks to Ella Graham, inclusion advocate, Clement James Centre and Alice Zacharia
CASE STUDY: SUPPORT HELPS MAYA RETURN TO SCHOOL
Maya* was permanently excluded from her mainstream secondary school due to challenging behaviour in year 10. At the point of referral, Maya had just had a managed move to another mainstream school terminated and Maya’s original school had made it clear that she was not allowed to return. The family were told Maya could have a managed move to a local alternative provision or she would be permanently excluded.
Despite the advocate’s efforts to negotiate with the head teacher, Maya was excluded. The advocate met with Maya and her mother to explain the process of permanent exclusion appeals, set expectations of the outcomes and to support the family in preparing for the appeal. An important part of the outreach project is giving the families the information they need to understand the formal processes of exclusion and opportunities to appeal.
Case consultations were a crucial step in preparing the advocate and family’s statements for the appeal. Based on careful consideration of the law and guidance on school exclusions, it was argued that Maya should be given a final chance to return to school before a permanent exclusion be issued.
Maya was able to articulate her feelings and experiences of the impact of a failed managed move, how she and her mother had not understood the consequences of this and her desire to return to school and learn from this experience.
The governing board chose to reinstate Maya back to school, stating that the permanent exclusion was not a last resort. The governing board also requested that the advocate attend Maya’s reintegration meeting.
*Name changed
