So PRUs are being referred to as ‘sin bins’ now?
How disrespectful. Disrespectful to our teams, our leaders and more importantly our children.
The pupils educated with us can be the most disaffected and traumatised children, yet capable of beyond what had ever been dreamed for them. High aspirations, expectations and a dedication to raising their self-worth are all at the heart of all the work we do as educators in this field.
If our children could hear their school being described a “sin bin”, as it has been in the wake of the Children’s Commissioner’s report, it would sadden them. If our parents heard it, they would be ashamed.
We have watched this narrative unfold, watched people talk for us and our pupils, watched the voice of those of us who work in PRUs neglected while what we do is being distorted and the lives of our pupils grossly oversimplified.
It’s completely inappropriate.
The true picture
So let’s set the record straight.
The needs of those on roll in a PRU cannot be met with any simple intervention. In many instances, they have been impacted by a huge number of different risk factors, from genetic and personal factors, through to external factors on a range of levels (eg, parental mental health concerns, lack of warm attachment figure).
These factors have interacted over time to produce a range of unproductive behaviours, both at school and in the community, including poor self-regulation, reduced executive functioning (responsible for working memory and problem-solving skills) and a lack of self-identity.
Into this comes the current narrative of connections between exclusions, gangs and PRUs.
No simple solution
Clearly, there is a strong association between those pupils who have been excluded from school and those that have joined gangs, or at least are exhibiting signs of criminal behaviour.
However, it is imperative to say that correlation is not causation; we know there is a strong link, but to put the responsibility of gang membership solely on the door of PRUs is unproductive and misleadingly simplistic - many of our pupils already know each other from the local community and live within a stone’s throw from each other. They are not suddenly meeting gang members for the first time - and it is ludicrous to assume that is the case. Nor are they suddenly seeking out gangs.
So why has this narrative gained momentum?
Easy target
As we described previously, the range of risk factors that shape a young person occur in many different spheres and don’t stop at familial or even community level - they go all the way to social policy. This is perhaps most noticeable when considering the effect of funding cuts to both pastoral roles and community services, as precipitated by ideological zeal and austerity.
Schools are only one cog in the complex machine that is child and adolescence development and without a more nuanced appreciation of the intricacies, the conversation will be forever doomed to be played out in trivial soundbites. It is easy, essentially, to blame schools and PRUs.
The problems this causes are not just the damage in the short-term as described above, but the long term.
How do we attract members of staff to work with us if this is how PRUs are viewed? How do we reach out to our local community to strengthen the protective factors surrounding our children if this is how our school is described in the media? How do we ensure parents are not frightened to send their children here if they think their children are then doomed to enter the criminal lifestyle, join a gang and put their life at risk?
Exclusion issues
And the narrative around exclusions has been just as damaging.
There seems to be a false impression of exclusions. In our experience, pupils and their families feel ashamed of the experience - exclusion impacts effort, self-esteem and general wellbeing, not to mention the fact it creates a reluctance to re-integrate back into mainstream school with the PEx box ticked.
There is no boasting, or crowing, from excluded children. This is not what they were seeking all along.
What we do with exclusions is that it adds to the existing different risk factors affecting pupils. And we are adding one of the few that schools have some measure of power over.
We have heard a lot of schools say they exclude only as a last resort, but in reality, how true is that?
Collaborative approach
Schools need to work with their local PRUs to access the wealth of specialist support and knowledge that they have available, not only in terms of innovative curriculum design but also the use of psychological interventions and existing close professional relationships with other professional agencies. Quite simply, this is not happening enough, or at all in some cases.
At our school, The Key, we have just finished phase one in our journey to become an Attachment & Trauma Informed Practice centre of excellence and have invited all local schools to share in this. We developed really positive working relationships and shared good practice across the community, for the benefit of all the pupils in the area, not just those at risk of exclusion.
Another thing we emphasise is the need for early intervention, which is especially true when it comes for transitions between primary and secondary - we have started working with our local primaries, so we are aware of pupils coming up through the key stages that may require greater support in the future.
Last resort
Yes, we may still need to exclude in certain circumstances, but we feel that with such an integrated approach to community development, we cannot only halt their rise but start to reduce them.
But the government needs to play its part. Schools can only affect so much of what is going on in the young person’s life; if we are to maximise that potential opportunity, it must be adequately funded, ensuring we move beyond ideology and into combating the day to day realities of rising thresholds and falling levels of support.
Our children are really worth more.
Leanne Forde-Nassey is headteacher and Ollie Ward is outreach lead at The Key Education Centre, Hampshire
