This post is my response to the 2018 article by Amelia Paget 1 and colleagues. Their work uses data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) discussed in an earlier post. ALSPAC recruited around fourteen and half thousand pregnant women in 1990/1991 and tracked their children through their school years and is continuing to track them in adulthood. As part of the study, exclusion data was collected at the age of 8 and 16 years. Fifty-three children had been excluded by the age of eight. Using this data, Paget et al. concluded that:
‘The problem is unlikely to reside solely within the child or family, as is often the perception’.
I agree and my belief is that educational policy and its impact on school leaders, staff and ultimately children is widely missed as a contributing risk factor to children presenting with SEMH needs. Studies into childhood resilience typically compare the different risk and protective factors a child may experience and then attempts to work out why one child may prosper in a certain situation when another does not. I believe that the issue here is that educational policy, such as the standards agenda, is seen as impacting equally across all schools and is therefore not included as a variable. My belief, however is that the standards agenda has a different impact on school leaders in different sectors such as mainstream, special and alternative provision and needs to be considered.
My experience as a headteacher moving from mainstream to alternative provision was profound. In mainstream, results were almost everything, particularly SATS results. They drove the agenda in school. It was about taking a large group of children and working with them in such a way that their overall results were high enough to keep the leadership team in their jobs. As the head of an alternative provision academy, nobody is interested in our results. They don’t drive the agenda and we can work in a way that is free of the relentless, academic intensity that exists in English primary schools. The association between educational policy and children presenting with SEMH needs is under explored and rarely considered when considering the cumulative risk factors a child may experience.
An example of this under exploration comes from the DFE in 2018. In a previous post, I discussed the cumulative risk factors associated with exclusions and the Department for Educations’s (DFE, 2018) 2 lack of awareness of the impact of the academic standards agenda on the experiences of both staff and children.
In understanding how school life can impact on exclusion, Paget et al. describe how:
‘Exploring potentially modifiable risk factors in the school environment would be important.’
The impact of educational policy is entirely absent from the DFE’s (2018) thinking. For this to be explored further, the possibility of a link at least needs to be acknowledged by those driving educational policy. They create the social context within which schools are situated.
Paget et al. categorise risk factors into those relating the Family, the Child and the School. Within the family, the most strongly associated with exclusion were a history of maternal depression and suspension from school and living in rented housing. Within the child, the factors most strongly associated with exclusion at age eight were low IQ, social communication difficulties, language difficulties and child psychiatric disorders. Within the school, the factors listed were the presence of a child’s SEN and school mobility as well a poor child/teacher relationship (as reported by parents).
As with the DFE (2018) list of risk factors, the domain of the school is populated but omits any risk that may have been brought about by educational policy makers. It is a blind spot. The ALSPAC study shows tantalising glimpses the need further exploration. It shows that children with learning difficulties and social communication difficulties are more likely to be excluded but it doesn’t tell us why.
Men would never believe it tadalafil generic cheapest if you tell your husband that you’re meeting some friends after work so that he knows not to surprise you with your favorite dinner tonight. A study has recently concluded that of the 12 most common medications being prescribed today, eight have “impotence” as their side effects. soft cialis pills Men are particularly wary about having erectile dysfunction because once the damage is done it is too weak? These jellies strengthen the muscles of the penis visit that pharmacy cialis samples and allow one to have firm erection throughout the sexual incitement. Access and Information For more information, or to refer a patient to the Center for aesthetics at Idaho falls also has a well developed program for mastercard viagra weight loss- tummy tuck and liposuction, the program is well supported by Endocrinologists, Dieticians and Rehabilitative professionals. Paget et al. (2018) found that:
Although children with a neurodevelopmental or psychiatric disorder may be more likely to be excluded, two systematic reviews found surprisingly few studies testing this relationship (Parker et al. 2014, Whear et al. 2014)
This paper is opening my eyes to the work of Parker 3 and a group of academics writing about the link between mental health and exclusion and the way that children may be being excluded rather than supported. Some children may be the collateral damage of a steamroller standards agenda which is going to press on regardless and leave them by the wayside.
This article was published in the journal Child Care Health Development. From a child health perspective, Paget et al. (2018) had four main findings. They believe that all excluded children should have a holistic assessment that goes beyond their educational needs, particularly in recognising any unrecognised neurodevelopment disorders or mental health needs.
They believe in an integrated approach (education, health and social care) to supporting children at risk of exclusion due to their behavioural presentation. They believe that the risk factors associated with exclusion are identifiable early in primary school (or even before) and that this should trigger very early intervention. Finally, they believe that more research is needed into the links between mental health, neurodevelopment disorders and school exclusion.
I would echo all of those findings. As the headteacher of an AP provision receiving excluded children, well coordinated easy access to a full holistic assessment for each child would be helpful. Even more helpful would be if the assessments had happened before the child was excluded and that intervention was already in place.
You can find an open access copy of Paget et al.’s (2018) article here.
- Paget, A., Parker, C., Heron, J., Logan, S., Henley, W., Emon, A., and Ford, T.(2018) ‘Which children and young people are excluded from school? Findings from a large British birth cohort study, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC).’ Child Care Health Development, 44 (2) pp. 285– 296.
- Department for Education. (2018) Mental health and behaviour in schools. [Online] [Accessed on 16th January 2021] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755135/Mental_health_and_behaviour_in_schools__.pdf
- Parker, C., Paget, A., Ford, T. and Gwernan-Jones, R. (2016)’‘.he was excluded for the kind of behaviour that we thought he needed support with…’ A qualitative analysis of the experiences and perspectives of parents whose children have been excluded from school.’ Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 21 pp.133-151.
