There are many examples in the literature of ways in which schools respond to students with special needs especially those with physical disabilities where the responses are more identifiable and effective than they are to students with behavioural difficulties.
In a review of the cost of support to students with disabilities in the post- compulsory sector Andrews et al. (1993) defined the functional limitations of students in terms of mobility, vision, hearing, manual dexterity, learning and personal health. As in compulsory age provision it would appear that students with defined disabilities for example mobility, vision, are readily identified and accommodated.
An investigation by Clark et al. (1999) of four schools in the UK which were ‘inclusive’ in some ways indicated that the ways of coping with inclusiveness created difficulties. Having enrolled students with a range of abilities, one school proceeded to group the students into ability groups thus perpetuating the separation of the better and more able students from the less able students needing additional support. Similar experiences were also reported in Northern Ireland (Lambe & Bones, 2006).
Clark et al. (1999) further describe how one school which had been providing in- class support to students withdrew that support and created ‘withdrawal’ classes for students with behavioural difficulties. A second school which appropriately and effectively addressed the needs of students with specific learning and developmental needs was not able to extend their principles to students exhibiting behaviour difficulties in class. The two other schools which were catering to students of all cognitive levels either prevented students with behavioural difficulties from enrolling or expelled them for breaches of discipline during the time of the investigation.
The New Zealand Special Education 2000 model of funding, in addition to the on- going support of high needs students, has a Severe Behaviour Initiative (SBI) for students “whose behaviour is of such intensity, frequency or duration that it:
• jeopardises the physical safety of the student or others;
• severely limits the students access to ordinary settings and interferes with social acceptance, sense of personal well-being and their educational performance” (Ministry of Education New Zealand, 1998, p. 1).
The initiative above is more focussed on encompassing students who have behavioural difficulties in schools than the funding model for Victoria. Schools in Victoria applying for funding must demonstrate all of the following criteria:
• “Student displays disturbed behaviour to a point where special support in a withdrawal group or special class/unit is required and
• Student displays behaviour so deviant and with such frequency and severity that they require regular psychological or psychiatric treatments; and
• The severe behaviour cannot be accounted for by: Intellectual Disability, Sensory (vision, hearing), Physical and/or Heath issues, Autism Spectrum Disorder or Severe Language disorder, and
• A history and evidence of an on-going problem with an expectation of continuation during the school years” (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2008d, p. 33).
The New Zealand Severe Behaviour Initiative (SBI) is a starting point in addressing the needs of students who are struggling to be maintained in mainstream schools due to their social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. The Victorian model is more limiting in terms of gaining funding support however students who have significant social, emotional and behavioural needs,
whether long-term or episodic, still need support to be maintained in the education system.
Visser and Stokes (2003) contend that whilst inclusion is advocated for a wide range of students with special needs, provision does not extend for those with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD). They argue that whilst other special needs students are included based on their human rights to mainstream education, with EBD students “other rights, legal and civil, also have to be taken into account and that these rights conflict”. Further “conflicting rights and legal preferences result in segregated provision being more prevalent for pupils with EBD” (p. 1).
In an Australian context, Keeffe (2004) discussed a well known discrimination case that was lodged in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Tribunal against a state education department and a principal for expelling a student with a known acquired brain injury. The student had been expelled when he hit students and staff. The tribunal found that discrimination had occurred. At the time, principals around Australia were concerned about the outcome as they shared the concerns of the principal who said “I am responsible for over 1000 other students and 80 teaching or SASS [school administrative and support staff] staff. The health and safety of all these people are also of great concern …” (Keeffe, 2004, p. 63) explained the dilemma of whose rights are being eroded when inappropriate and especially violent behaviour is an issue. In the foregoing case, later appeals to the High Court found that no discrimination against the student had occurred.
In Victoria, at times there are a number of functional placements of students with social and emotional difficulties, but no intellectual disability, into specialist schools for students where one entry criterion is intellectual functioning at least two standard deviations below the mean score. In these cases the mainstream school considers it has explored all options to maintain the student in the school without success. The functional placements are approved by the regional managers when all other avenues for sourcing the necessary expertise and resources have been explored, and alternate options are not available. Specialist schools are chosen for functional placements because historically they have smaller class sizes, due to the higher needs of the students. Functional placements, whilst limited, occur for students who are too difficult to place elsewhere.
In England provision is made for “pastoral support programs” for students with special needs. Individual programs are expected to be developed for students who are “identified as being at risk of exemption or disaffection” (Visser & Stokes, 2003, p. 70) and these programs need to be “monitored and adapted where necessary. Only when a school can show that they have tried every possible avenue with a particular child and that they have failed, can a headteacher permanently exclude a pupil. The only exception to implementing a program is if a pupil has behaved in such a way as to endanger ‘others’ safety” (p. 70).
Visser and Stokes (2003) cite research which indicates that in schools there is less tolerance of students who are disruptive and whose behaviours may adversely affect the schools’ reputation and “the schools’ performance in the examination league tables” (p. 70). Pupil Referral Units (PRU) were established to provide
“suitable full-time or part-time education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any periods receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them” (United Kingdom Parliament, 1993Section 298 (1)). There was an intention of including students needing on-going medical treatment and those who feared for their safety at school. Despite the broader definition, PRUs are usually associated with, and have more students with EBD enrolled than any other category of need. This was the opinion of the Principals of the two PRUs when visited in November 2004.
Visser and Stokes (2003) consider the media portrays disruptive behaviour as a rise in school violence and connects PRUs as able to deal with violence. They also argue that there are inconsistencies in the system catering for students and that the Government, instead of addressing the inconsistencies has made “it easier for schools to permanently exclude troublesome pupils and to expand the use of off- site units and Pupil Referral Units” (Visser & Stokes, 2003, p. 70).
The Pupil Referral Units were “required by the Dfee [Department for Education and Employment] to operate a ‘revolving door policy’ which means that students will, wherever possible, attend the P.R.U for a maximum of 2/3 terms” (Victoria House Pupil Referral Unit, 2003). The principals of the PRUs reported that there was consistent difficulty in negotiating re-enrolment of their students back into schools as mainstream principals were reluctant to enrol students who were still going to need additional support and who could lower the schools’ performance measures.
Schools are encouraged to focus on academic achievement reinforced by the publication of the schools’ annual performance data. In England the league tables are published both in newspapers and on the internet. The tables “give information on the achievement and attainment of pupils in local secondary schools, and how they compare with other schools in the local authority (LA) area and in England as a whole” (Department for Education and Skills, 2005, p. 1). Newspaper articles with titles such as “Trafford hits the top but Bristol sinks” (Halpin, 2006); “A critical extra edge for leading grammar” (Halpin & Blair, 2006) “Academies are failing on GCSE results” (Hackett, 2006) and “Schools that must try harder” (Blair, 2007) maintain pressure on schools to keep their academic performance ratings as high as possible.
In Victoria, the results of the schools’ performances in the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) including completion rates, median study scores and percentages of study scores of 40 and over for all schools delivering the VCE are published annually. The emphasis is on measurable outcomes of education. The pressure for results can reduce the student friendly environment and encouragement required to maintain marginal students in school. In 1999 the Office of Review acknowledged that schools have a wider brief than just results, and published a paper that discussed social aspects of education, and provided a module to assess social performance. These social performance data are rarely reported in newspapers, if at all.
Most students are able to maintain positive participation in education until late secondary school as evidenced by 84.2% apparent retention rate to year 12 in Victorian schools in 2008 (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2009d). There are however, some students identified as being “at risk of not completing secondary education” (Batten & Russell, 1995, p. 1), who need an encouraging and supportive environment and additional resources to stay at school. This can create a philosophical dilemma for schools that need to decide whether they should attempt to include all students which may necessitate administrative as well as pedagogical changes and risk losing their standing on the ‘league tables’.
The range of at-risk students includes students “whose school achievement is significantly below their potential achievement level, thus indicating they are not benefiting from attendance at school” (Batten & Russell, 1995, p. 1) and students whose aberrant behaviours are excluding them from the school environment: the ‘too hard kids’ (Goudie, 1988). Broadbent (2008), Burdekin (1998) and Walters et al. (1991) valued the need for the social connection with schools for homeless students but confirmed that negative school experiences reduced the confidence of young people to survive in formal education
Extending the above theme, Cunneen and White (1995) consider that “where people are separated from development institutions such as the education system … the consequence is activity which is anti-social or rebellious. A sense of powerlessness and vulnerability can manifest itself in varying kinds of self- destructive and anti-social behaviour. Suicide represents one such response” (p.
127). Proactively Cunneen and White (2006) consider that “positive participation in one developmental institution usually implies that a young person is simultaneously nested in a web of supportive relationships” (p. 310).
Evans and Gardiner (1994) contend that schools are suspending and expelling students who are difficult to manage. They consider that schools are using discipline policies, which allow suspension of students and can lead to total exclusion, as the first step in providing deterrents for unacceptable behaviours rather than exploring other options to modify the behaviours. This contention is supported by Jenkin (1994) who suggests that “children with behaviour and learning difficulties … are most likely to suffer the consequences of suspension (Jenkin, 1994, p. 28). Rogers (1992) produced figures indicating a doubling of suspension rates from 1985 to 1990 in Victoria. This coincided with the first wave of increased school retention rates from 39.4% to 62.8%. At the same time the Government secondary school population reduced from 254,919 to 228,269 (Directorate of School Education, 1993, p. 50). Also corporal punishment was banned in Victorian Schools from January 1983 which Bouhours (2007) suggests was the catalyst for a “rise in the number of suspensions and exclusions”, as “official exclusions in Victorian primary schools were unknown before 1983” (p.22).
Multiple suspensions can alienate students from their schools and lead to early school leaving. The outcomes may include long-term social and monetary costs to society as well as the students. Consequently there is a need to address the issue and minimise the factors which limit inclusion.