Gestión de riesgos financieros y definición de coberturas

From discussions in Chapter 6 in relation to the wellbeing of LACYP, it was noted that their behaviour can be connected to whether they are engaged with their overall education. In this respect, PESS was not isolated. Yet, data from this study suggest that the LACYP participants who were disengaged from school in general, also appeared to be disengaged from PESS. This is evident in the extract below from Shannon who spoke about the bullying she had experienced at school and how this had made her schooling particularly difficult:

Shannon: It got to the point where I refused to even bother going to class. It got to the point where I used to pull the fire alarm every day … every single day. They knew it was me, they wouldn’t even evacuate the school … It got to the point where they’d just tell everyone to stay where they were and they’d just come and get me, ‘cos they’d seen me on camera pull it, d’ya know what I mean. Then they’d put me in Isolation and I used to love Isolation. I used to be in Isolation every single day. Y’know most kids go “Oh I don’t want to be in Isolation”, I was in Isolation every day. I knew all the teachers in Isolation, I used to love being in Isolation.

CW: Why did you love Isolation so much?

Shannon: No one’s allowed to talk to you, you’re not allowed to talk to anyone else. You get your lunch brought to you, you get to sit there and do fuck all, all day. Best days of my lives. I never got any GCSEs, any qualifications, nothing. ‘Cos I refused to go to class, refused to interact.

Placing pupils in some form of ‘isolation’ has traditionally been used in state schools as a reprimand for displaying undesirable behaviours that are not severe enough to warrant a fixed period or permanent exclusion. The DfE (2016, p.12) guidance on Behaviour and Discipline in Schools states that: “Schools can adopt a policy which allows disruptive pupils to be placed in an area away from other pupils for a limited period, in what are often referred to as seclusion or isolation rooms”. It is for individual schools to decide how long a pupil should be kept in isolation and to determine what pupils may and may not do during the time they are there (DfE, 2016). The guidance states that their time spent there needs to be used as constructively as possible and they should not be kept in isolation longer than is necessary. However, similarly to exclusion, the reason for the adverse behaviour displayed may be complex and deep-rooted (as was noted in section 6.3). From Shannon’s perspective, her experience of schooling was particularly negative, stemming from personal reasons that perhaps were not apparent to the staff at her school. For example, Shannon disclosed some rather traumatic experiences about her life prior to

entering care including neglect and sexual abuse, and that when she became looked-after during her teenage years she implied that she was already disengaged from school and out of mainstream education. Daniel (2008) argues that having positive school and community experiences can act as a protective factor against risk and help to develop resilience. These advantages have also been associated with sports participants within positive youth development literature (e.g. Holt, 2008). For Shannon, her negative experiences of neglect and abuse and a lack of positive community support meant that she did not appear to value any aspect of education. This was reflected in her negative outlook on school, which unsurprisingly also included PESS, as the extract below demonstrates:

Shannon: The fact is, during that time, the social services were involved. The kids [brother and sister] were being taken away, proceeds and everything like that. So I wasn’t focused on school, I didn’t care about that. I didn’t care what the fuck was happening, I cared what was happening with my brother and sister, what was going on at home, d’you know what I mean.

Occurrences outside of school transitioned into school, affecting Shannon’s academic achievement and her participation in PESS. For Shannon, school was a place of perceived hatred that represented an arena for bullying; it involved a lack of understanding from those around her and denoted a difficult social context in which to engage. Staying after school to participate in extra-curricular activities was therefore not a priority for Shannon, who stated that her attendance at secondary school was lower than 28%. Shannon did not specify which year this attendance rate was, yet it is far lower than the national average rate of 95% (DfE, 2017c). It is reported that when children and young people remain out of education or training for a significant amount of time, it can result in lower academic achievement (Stephenson, 2007). Jackson and colleagues (2011) explain that irregular school attendance should be noted as a possible indication that the child could be suffering from serious family problems, which was certainly the case for Shannon. However, Shannon expressed that she did not feel that the school helped her situation having reported the bullying two years prior to her exclusion from school at the age of 14. Stephenson (2007) argues that truanting involves wilfully missing school without ‘parental’ consent or knowledge, often displaying traits of anti-social behaviour. This was the case

for this young woman, who in a separate interview, spoke of her involvement in anti-social behaviour and experience in custody, as detailed in Chapter 6 (section 6.3). If LACYP enter the custodial system whilst at school, it increases their chances of instability at school, consequently resulting in detachment to mainstream education (Stephenson, 2007). As previously noted in relation to a LACYP behaviour, these disengagement characteristics are considered to be an individual influence within the social ecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988), yet can be affected by those factors at an interpersonal and institutional level, such as their birth family or their school environment.

This notion of disengagement from education also became apparent for other young people during the group and individual interviews. However, unlike the discussion above that confirms Shannon attributing her disengagement to the institutional and interpersonal situations taking place outside the school environment, Jamie implied that his disengagement was because of individual factors (McLeroy et al., 1988), such as lethargy and a difficulty to see a positive future:

Jamie: I think it was mainly just me not wanting to learn that affected my education.

CW: And where did that come from?

Jamie: It might be because of my laziness when I was at home. ‘Cos like, well I wouldn’t say laziness, reluctant as to do anything. And loads of people, well most people, would blame what went on at home as its impact on education. I’m not really one to do that. That is a factor of it but I, it’s mainly me thinking about. I didn’t really think about the future and I didn’t have an image of a future. So school to me was just a waste of time because I didn’t see myself as ever having a future. I didn’t even contemplate a future, so I couldn’t really be bothered to learn because of that.

Staines (2016) asserts that a crucial way for any child or young person to develop aspirations and prepare for the future is to find out their own interests and aptitudes and

to be supported in developing them. Foster carers and residential workers have been recognised as playing a central role in promoting educational achievement and aspirations for LACYP (see Jackson et al., APPG, 2012). Yet Jamie’s difficulty in being able to imagine a future for himself, could be attributed to an interpersonal influence (McLeroy et al., 1988) of a lack of support and encouragement to help him understand the importance of education for his future. Pinkerton (2006) implies that young people who have low expectations for the future may, by way of an alternative, turn to risk-taking behaviours instead. Jamie’s lack of value towards his education meant that he did not invest fully in school, which was also recognised in the previous chapter regarding his behaviour (see section 6.3). Raising LACYP’s aspirations and building life chances is associated with the development of a Personal Education Plan (PEP) (see Section 3.4). As noted earlier, all LACYP in England must have a PEP which is usually reviewed bi-annually and forms part of their care plan. It helps track each LACYP’s educational progress, as well as ensuring the right type and level of support is continually provided. From speaking with the LACYP participants within this study about whether PESS is considered within the PEP, it became evident that on the whole they did not want to engage with PEP meetings and appeared not to see the importance of them; as an extract from 16-year-old Nathan demonstrates:

CW: In those PEP meetings, what do you chat about?

Nathan: I dunno I wasn’t really listening. I wouldn’t listen unless someone said my name.

CW: Why didn’t you want to listen?

Nathan: Boring, someone is talking and talking and talking.

During the interviews with LACYP, I tried to uncover whether PESS forms part of their PEP meetings. However, most of the LACYP interviewed found it difficult to explain the content of those meetings due to their lack of engagement in them. For example, during an individual interview with 12-year-old Mia, she spoke with frustration at how the meetings would take place over her break times:

CW: So what sort of things do you chat about in those [PEP] meetings?

Mia: I don’t really pay attention.

CW: How come you don’t pay attention?

Mia: They’re boring.

CW: Why’s that?

Mia: ‘Cos they’re in school, during your own time. Most of the time they’re during lunch time or break time when I’m meant to be with my mates eating or chasing them round playing tag or summit. Not sat there in a meeting room that’s about the same size as this (interview sized room) with about four or five of us in.

For Mia, her break times were valued more highly than her PEP, since it was the part of the school day where she could play with her friends. During the interview, it became clear that Mia’s friends were considered to be an important role within her overall school experience and therefore she did not want to be in a meeting that she deemed to be unimportant. Interestingly, a qualitative study by Holland (2010) also found that LACYP showed disinterest in the formal care context with regard to reviews and care plans. This highlights the complex nature of this study by presenting an interesting conflict between the ‘official’ priorities at the public policy level and Mia’s personal priorities within the individual level of her social ecology (McLeroy et al., 1988). Being treated differently from other young people not in care is what Shaw and Frost (2013) refer to as ‘system abuse’ and what they refer to as one of the main causes of educational disadvantage. The APPG (2012, p.29) remind us that “children and young people must have a say in the planning for their education, but it needn't be obligatory for them to attend the formal PEP meeting”. Within this study, those LACYP who said they attended their PEP meetings implied that they rarely engaged; as Shannon explains:

I told them [professionals] “I don’t like education, I still don’t want education, can we not have this meeting” and then I would kick off, kick a chair across the room and go out for a fag.

Chapter 4 (section 4.2) identified that there are challenges around hearing youth voice and Shannon’s sentiment is one example of how this challenge manifests itself. With responses such as this, it could be argued that giving LACYP a choice of whether they would like to attend may be more beneficial for their engagement with school than being singled out. Formal meetings with professionals rarely happen with children in their birth families, so it questions whether LACYP would feel happier having these conversations regarding their education with just their foster carers or Designated Teacher. Recent research also attempts to address the challenges of youth voice and poses alternative forms of engaging children and young people, which could prove useful for some LACYP (see Hill, 2006).

It has been suggested that engagement with education is dependent on factors which are both internal and external to the child or young person (Cameron et al., 2015). Internal factors include the child’s cognitive and emotional dimensions, and external factors include participation in academic work outside of the school and behavioural aspects of school, such as attendance and adherence to the school rules. These were largely identified in Chapter 6, within the context of debate regarding LACYP’s behaviour and wellbeing. However, Cameron and colleagues (2015) add that, alongside providing academic and behaviour aspects, school can also provide opportunities for developing more emotional and social aspects such as participation in extra-curricular activities. For the LACYP participants in this study who did not engage with education, and consequently did not benefit from the academic or behavioural aspects associated with school, these extra- curricular activities can perhaps be considered of greater importance. These experiences were noted within Chapter 2 as providing opportunities for enjoyment, building relationships and developing a sense of self-efficacy which in turn can impact positively on LACYP’s engagement within school (Cameron et al., 2015). For some of the youth participants in this study, however, these opportunities were not considered valuable, which questions whether such benefits are indeed achievable, as the next theme demonstrates.