PRU Provision
Professional opinion
This report provides critical evaluation of the arguments for and against the proposed creation of a new Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) in Hammersmith and Fulham LEA for 175 pupils spanning Key Stages 3 and 4.
This report provides critical evaluation of the arguments for and against the proposed creation of new Pupil Referral Units (PRU) for pupils spanning Key Stage 3 and 4.
PRUs are integral to the Behaviour Support Plans (BSPs) of most Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales. Section 527A of the 1996 Education Act placed a duty on all LEAs to produce a BSP which sets out local arrangements for children who are regarded as having 'behavioural difficulties'. Each LEA was required to publish its BSP by 31 December, 1998. At the same time, however, the core function of BSPs was to be their role in promoting inclusion. Thus, Circular 1/98 identified educational inclusion as one of its policy aims, stating that:
Many pupils with behavioural difficulties are educated within a mainstream setting with schools accessing support services as appropriate. The developing inclusive approach towards education for pupils with special educational needs, including those with behavioural difficulties, should result in this being the case for a greater proportion of such pupils where schools believe they are able to cope effectively with them (DfES, 1998a)
In most LEAs full time education is offered to all excluded and disaffected pupils of secondary age: permanent places at the PRU are often offered for pupils excluded or disaffected from school at KS4
Arguments in favour of PRUs
The PRU or 'son of the sanctuary' arrived with the publication of the govemment circulars collectively entitled 'Pupils with Problems' (DfES, 1994a - 1994e). These included Circular 11/94, which was largely devoted to the education of young people in pupil referral units (PRUs). The Circular recognised that units which had previously dealt with young people who had been excluded from school 'have until now had a dubious legal status'. Moreover, it confirmed the haphazard manner of referral adopted by many existing off-site units, stating that the 'How and why pupils are referred to units currently varies between LEAs and between units and rarely seems to be determined by clear and consistent LEA policy' (para. 28). Accordingly, the Circular sought to promote the establishment of 'a new type of school (sic), to be known as a pupil referral unit' (para. 25). The Circular also indicated that existing off-site units wouldwill be henceforth termed PRUs. There are clear benefits to an the LEA and other stakeholdersothers of creating PRUs and these are the proposed PRU as follows:
- Full time education possible for larger number of pupils than under the previous range of provisionpreviously possible
- Excluded pupils have dedicated educational provision to attend
- Administratively simpler to have one large unit in which to place pupils in
- Transition between KS3 and KS4 made easier by pupils sharing same site
- Pupils are offered opportunities that may not be as readily available they can miss while in a mainstream context, such as social skills training; personal target setting; team-building challenges; and residential and outward bound typesports activities.
- When pupils are within Key Stage 4,older, the PRUs can provide joint PRU/college courses, attendance at skills centres for vocational training and work experience.
- Provision of short term respite for all involved leading to reintegration of pupils to mainstream school via a ‘revolving door’ placement system
Arguments against PRUs
It will be immediately obvious at the outset that provision of alternative formats of education in a segregated setting, as in the case of pupil referral units (PRUs), raises a policy paradox. To what extent is such provision commensurate with the spirit and letter of the Government’s Programme of Action, which emphasised inclusion for all?
There are clear drawbacks to the provision of education for young people in such settings. These include:
- Segregation of pupils in unit provision damages self- esteem and decreases likelihood of successful transition back into mainstream school and community life.
- Creates a university for crime, swearing and violence. Most learning for students of all ages is social and by imitation.
- Little evidence to suggest that such provision increases pupil achievement. for pupils
- Little evidence that such provision actually improves behaviour. In fact there is a high likelihood of more learned negative anti social behaviour
- Longer term negative outcomes for pupils placed in such provision likely to include prison, mental health problems, suicide, drug addiction and relationship problems
- Large majority (likely to be over 90%) of PRU pupils will be male. This does not offer much equity of opportunity for girls/young women with challenging emotional needs and skews LEA spending towards meeting boy’s emotional and behavioural needs.raises a number of significant issues for a virtually all boy provision. Overrepresentation of black pupils in PRU provision following exclusion as feeds the racism already present within society reflected in exclusion figures shown in the Appendix below for one LEA, mirrors and feeds the racism within society at large and does nothing to combat institutionally racist perceptions of young black males..
- Absence of healthy, male peer role models within the peer group.. Who are these pupils to learn from? Most learning is social. Pupils learn from one another. Any setting that congregates all those with the most challenging behaviour cannot hope to provide anything other than a toxic environment for young people to work and learn in. In short what has been created is, at worst, a ‘university’ for crime, swearing and violence
- PRUs buildBuilding on a ‘broken model of provision for which there is little evidence of efficacy.provision’ From as early as the 1970s and the early part of the1980s, there were was the operation of a large number of segregated ‘behaviour’ units which, according to both contemporary and more recent analysis, were largely inadequate and inequitable (Basini, 1981: Drew, 1990). Characteristically the 'off-site unit' for disruptive pupils comprised often poorly maintained accommodation (Dempster, 1989), largely informal modes of referral (Bash, Coulby and Jones, 1985), restricted and poorly resourced curricular opportunities (Garner, 1987), and frequently inexperienced, if well-meaning, teachers (DES, 1989). Will new PRUs really be able to move beyond this unsuccessful method of educating young people with challenging behaviour?any better?
- Circular 11/94 blandly asserts that the aim of PRUs should be 'to secure an early return to mainstream' (p.3). Evidence so far suggests that such good intentions are seldom brought to fruition, as pupil and teacher accounts from PRUs illustrate.s.
- Most of the students in a study of PRUs by Garner (2000) indicated a desire in pupils to remain in the PRU until they had reached compulsory school leaving age (16 years in England and Wales). This way of thinking could be explained in terms of the 'push and pull' theory. The students, in spite of expressed reservations about the quality of the accommodation provided for their PRU, felt a sense of belonging. Not only was the PRU acting in a positive manner in retaining its students in a 'segregated' setting (the 'pull'), but also the local mainstream schools presented an ethos and orientation thatwhich the students felt were not conducive to their successful re-integration (the 'push').
- Cynical attitudes towards to reintegration among teaching staff 'I'm sick of both us and our students being used as political footballs. It is about time somebody had the guts to state what most people working in PRUs have known for years - these kids won't survive in the mainstream, and teachers there don't want them to' (Garner, 2000). (Ref??) We give the staff of PRUs an impossible job, burn out rates are high and little is done to build the capacity of all mainstream schools to include those with challenging behaviour.
In conclusion
Whilst seeming an attractive option to Governments, schools and LEAs there is no history or evidence to support PRU’s efficacy with regardregards to promoting behaviour change, reintegration or inclusion within a mainstream school and community. The risk that risks of greater alienation, racism, lowered self esteem and, the learning of new negative anti social behaviour will very likely to lead ultimately to mental health issues, future, relationship problems and criminal behaviour problems should be enough to deter the further development of this model of working.
Whilst we await evaluation studies of the emerging 'on-site' exclusion units, there is already data which suggests that there remain important question marks regarding the effectiveness of PRUs. Furthermore, those who are currently engaged as the main 'actors' in these settings (notably the pupils and the teachers) provide evidence of both resource-failure and policy paradox. In attending to them I suggest that PRUs (and, by inference, on-site exclusion units) run contrary to the spirit of inclusion. They remain, in spite of some improvement - a replica of earlier, unsatisfactory segregated provision and stand as confirmation that, in these cases of many EBD children, inclusive thinking has yet to become embedded within practice. (Professor, Philip Garner 2000 - Nottingham Trent University, UK)
There are many other fresh approaches to managing behaviour within an inclusive ethos which could insteadshould be given priority for resources and development energies in all LEAsLeas across the UK. A number of these arecan be seen referred to on our web site inclusive-solutions.com.
Suggested Further Reading/Related ResourcesReferences
BASH, L., COULBY, D. and JONES, C. (1985) Urban Schooling: theory and practice. Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
BASINI, A. (1981) 'Urban schools and "disruptive" pupils', Educational Review, 33 (3), 37-49.
BUSH, L. and HILL, T. (1993) 'The right to teach, the right to learn'. British Journal of Special Education, 20 (1), 4-7
COOPER, P. (1999) 'Educating children with emotional and behavioural difficulties: the evolution of current thinking and provision', in P. Cooper (ed.) Understanding and Supporting Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
COULBY, D. (1984) The creation of the disruptive pupil', in Lloyd-Smith, M. (ed.) Disrupted Schooling. London: John Murray, 98-119.
DEMPSTER, L (1989) 'Dangerous units remain open', The Times Educational Supplement, 3 February.
DEPARTMENT for EDUCATION (1994a) Pupil Behaviour and Discipline. Circular 8/94. London: DfES..
DEPARTMENT for EDUCATION (1994b) The Education of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. Circular 9/94. London: DfES
DEPARTMENT for EDUCATION (1994c) Exclusions from School.1994b) The Education of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. Circular 109/94. London: DfES.
DEPARTMENT for EDUCATION (1994d) The Education by LEAs of Children Otherwise than at1994c) Exclusions from School. Circular 1110/94. London: DfES.
DEPARTMENT for EDUCATION (1994d) The Education by LEAs of Children Otherwise than at School. Circular 11/94. London: DfE.
DEPARTMENT for EDUCATION (1994e) The Education of Children being looked after by Local Authorities Circular 13/94. London: DfES..
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION and EMPLOYMENT (1997) Excellence for All Children. Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION and EMPLOYMENT (1998a) Guidance on LEA Behaviour Support Plans. (Circular 1/98) London: DfEE.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION and EMPLOYMENT (1998b) Meeting Special Educational Needs. A Programme of Action London: DfEE.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION and EMPLOYMENT (2000) London: DfEE.
DREW, D. (1990) 'From tutorial unit to schools' support service'. Support for Learning, 5 (1),13-21.
GARNER, P. (1987) 'Disruptive Pupils: a study of two approaches in a London Borough'. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of London: Institute of Education..
Philip Garner (2000)- Nottingham Trent University Paper Presented at ISEC 2000
Pupil Referral Units: A Policy and Practice Paradox
GARNER, P. (1996) 'A la recherche du temps PRU: case study evidence from off-site and pupil referral units'. Children and Society , 10 (3), 187-196.
GARNER, P. (1999) Pupils with Problems. Rational fears…radical solutions. Stoke-on-Trent. Trentham Books.
OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION (1993) Achieving Good Behaviour in Schools. London: HMSO.
TOMLINSON, S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge.
Colin Newton and Derek Wilson (formerly Principal and Senior Educational Psychologists – Nottingham City LEA)
Inclusive Solutions
20th December 2002
Appendix: Key Excerpts relevant to PRUs taken from one LEA’s Behaviour Support Plan 2001
Statistics on Exclusions in Hammersmith and Fulham
3.3Exclusions Data
3.3.1 The following tables show firstly how Hammersmith and Fulham compare statistically, both locally and nationally, in terms of exclusions from information provided by the DfEE, and where this is not possible, the information relating specifically to Hammersmith and Fulham.
PermanentExclusions from Primary Schools /Rate per 1000 pupils
LEA / Statistical Neighbours / National / Neighbours Difference / National DifferenceAll pupils 1995-6 / 1.0 / 0.5 / 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.7
All pupils 1996-7 / 1.0 / 0.6 / 0.4 / 0.4 / 0.6
All pupils 1997-8 / 1.9 / 0.6 / 0.4 / 1.3 / 1.5
All pupils 1998-9 / 1.3 / 0.6 / 0.4 / 0.7 / 0.9
All pupils 1999-2000 / Data not currently available
Boys 1995-6 / 1.6 / 1.0 / 0.6 / 0.6 / 1.0
Boys 1996-7 / 1.6 / 1.1 / 0.7 / 0.5 / 0.8
Boys 1997-8 / 3.3 / 1.1 / 0.7 / 2.3 / 2.6
Boys 1998-9 / 2.3 / 1.1 / 0.6 / 1.3 / 1.7
Boys 1999-2000 / Data not currently available
Girls 1995-6 / 0.5 / 0.1 / 0.0 / 0.4 / 0.4
Girls 1996-7 / 0.5 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.4 / 0.4
Girls 1997-8 / 0.5 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.4 / 0.4
Girls 1998-9 / 0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.2
Girls 1999-2000 / Data not currently available
Table 1 Source: DfEE Form 7/ OFSTED LEA Profile (April 2000)
Number of Permanent Exclusionsfrom Primary Schools
1995 – 1996 / 9
1996 – 1997 / 17
1997 – 1998 / 12
1998 – 1999 / 4
1999 – 2000 / 4
Table 2 Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Data
Permanent Exclusions from Secondary Schools /Rate per 1000 pupils
Permanent Exclusions
/ LEA / Statistical Neighbours / National / Neighbours Difference / National DifferenceAll pupils 1995 – 1996 / 10.6 / 5.7 / 2.9 / 4.8 / 7.7
All pupils 1996 – 1997 / 9.1 / 6.4 / 3.4 / 2.7 / 5.7
All pupils 1997 – 1998 / 8.3 / 5.6 / 3.4 / 2.6 / 4.9
All pupils 1998 – 1999 / 6.3 / 5.5 / 3.3 / 0.7 / 3.0
All pupils 1999 – 2000 / Data not currently available
Boys 1995 – 1996 / 16.0 / 9.2 / 4.7 / 6.9 / 11.3
Boys 1996 – 1997 / 14.6 / 9.4 / 5.4 / 5.2 / 9.2
Boys 1997 – 1998 / 14.3 / 8.4 / 5.5 / 5.9 / 8.8
Boys 1998 – 1999 / 9.8 / 8.4 / 5.4 / 1.3 / 4.4
Boys 1999 – 2000 / Data not currently available
Girls 1995 – 1996 / 5.1 / 2.3 / 1.1 / 2.8 / 4.0
Girls 1996 – 1997 / 3.6 / 3.4 / 1.3 / 0.3 / 2.3
Girls 1997 – 1998 / 2.3 / 2.8 / 1.3 / -0.5 / 1.0
Girls 1998 – 1999 / 2.9 / 2.7 / 1.2 / 0.2 / 1.6
Girls 1999 – 2000 / Data not currently available
Table 3 Source: DfEE Form 7/ OFSTED LEA Profile (April 2000)
Number of Permanent Exclusionsfrom Secondary Schools
1995 –1996 / 56
1996 – 1997 / 65
1997 – 1998 / 47
1998 – 1999 / 46
1999 – 2000 / 18
Table 4 Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Data
Number of Permanent Exclusionsfrom Special Schools
1995 – 1996 / 0
1996 – 1997 / 5
1997 – 1998 / 1
1998 – 1999 / 0
1999 – 2000 / 0
Table 5 Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Data
Fixed Term Exclusions: / Primary / Secondary / Special / Total1995 – 1996 / 87 / 489 / 115 / 691
1996 – 1997 / 163 / 486 / 97 / 746
1997 – 1998 / 123 / 373 / 23 / 523
1998 – 1999 / 138 / 343 / 63 / 594
1999 – 2000 / 118 / 323 / 79 / 520
Table 6 Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Data
Permanent Exclusions Broken Down by Ethnicity1995 – 1996 / 1996 – 1997 / 1997 – 1998 / 1998 – 1999 / 1999 – 2000
Ethnic Group / No. / % / No. / % / No. / % / No. / % / No. / %
White / 24 / 27.3% / 29 / 30.9% / 13 / 21.7% / 15 / 30.0% / 7 / 31.8%
Black Caribbean / 25 / 28.4% / 27 / 28.7% / 15 / 25.0% / 15 / 30.0% / 4 / 18.2%
Black African / 10 / 11.4% / 5 / 5.3% / 3 / 5.0% / 4 / 8.0% / 1 / 4.5%
Black Other / 5 / 5.7% / 7 / 7.4% / 8 / 13.3% / 9 / 18.0% / 7 / 31.8%
Indian / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1.7% / 1 / 2.0% / 0
Pakistani / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2.0% / 0
Bangladeshi / 0 / 2 / 2.1% / 1 / 1.7% / 0 / 0
Chinese / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Other / 2 / 2.3% / 8 / 8.6% / 5 / 8.3% / 5 / 10.0% / 3 / 13.6%
Not known / 0 / 1 / 1.0% / 0 / 0 / 0
Not given / 22 / 25.0% / 15 / 16.0% / 14 / 23.3% / 0 / 0
Total / 88 / 100% / 94 / 100% / 60 / 100% / 50 / 100% / 22 / 100%
Table 7 Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Data
Permanent Exclusions Broken Down by GenderFemale / Male / Total
Number / % of total / Number / % of total / Number
1995 – 1996 / 12 / 13.6% / 76 / 86.4% / 88
1996 – 1997 / 11 / 11.7% / 83 / 88.3% / 94
1997 – 1998 / 12 / 20.0% / 48 / 80.0% / 60
1998 – 1999 / 7 / 14.0% / 43 / 86.0% / 50
1999 – 2000 / 0 / 0.0% / 22 / 100.0% / 22
Table 8 Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Data
Summary of Recent Change /Fixed Term Exclusions
/ Permanent ExclusionsPhase / 98 – 99 / 99 – 00 / Change / 98 – 99 / 99 - 00 / Change
Primary / 138 / 118 / - 20 / 4 / 4 / 0
Secondary / 343 / 323 / - 20 / 46 / 18 / - 28
Special / 63 / 79 / +16 / 0 / 0 / 0
TOTAL / 544 / 520 / - 24 / 50 / 22 / - 28
Table 9 Source: Hammersmith and Fulham Data
3.3.2 In both primary and secondary schools, the LEA’s exclusion rate over a 3 year period, despite decreasing, is well above the national average and also well above that of its statistical neighbours. Despite the targeting of resources there is still a high level of exclusions and although this is levelling off, it remains too high. Boys are consistently over-represented and this reflects national trends.
There is still a significant over-representation of pupils described using ‘black’ categories: approximately two thirds of both fixed term and permanent exclusions in 1999 – 2000 were of non-white pupils. This proportion is growing as the number of exclusions falls overall, and is a priority we are addressing though the Education Development Plan.
Statemented provision for pupils with emotional and behavioural needs.
Primary
/Secondary
Year: / 96-97 / 97-98 / 98-99 / 99-00 / 96-97 / 97-98 / 98-99 / 99-00Mainstream: in-borough
/ 33 / 31 / 28 / 35 / 34 / 30 / 33 / 30Mainstream: out-borough / 1 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 17 / 15 / 17 / 11
Special: in-borough / 9 / 9 / 12 / 19 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 8
Special: out-borough / 1 / 5 / 2 / 1 / 16 / 16 / 19 / 34
Special: residential / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 12 / 9 / 10 / 9
4.2LEA Support Services
Complementing and interlinked with the above strategies, the LEA provides a range of services supporting individual pupils presenting emotional and behaviour difficulties, and their schools, a brief description of which is given on the following table:
Service / Funding basis / Key activities / Referral routePupil Referral Unit (PRU): Key Stage 3 and 4 / LEA funded. Not delegated. Managed by the PRU Manager / Full time education is offered to all excluded and disaffected pupils of secondary age: permanent places at the PRU are offered for pupils excluded or disaffected from school at KS4 / Referral by the Education Authority following exclusion, or by schools, ESWS, Social Services or Health, with the agreement of pupils and parents, to multi-disciplinary panel, for interview
Pupil Referral Unit
(Primary) / Managed by Gibbs Green Special School through SLA with LEA / Education for primary age excluded pupils for a minimum of 15 hours a week / Pupils are referred by the Education Authority following exclusion
Primary Behaviour Support Team / Funded by the LEA through SLA.
Managed by Gibbs Green Special School. / Advice and training for primary mainstream schools in the management of behaviour. Direct work with individual pupils, groups and classes presenting challenging behaviour and those at risk of exclusion. Individual support for pupils returning to mainstream schools following exclusion. / Referral from schools and the Education Authority at stage 2 of the stages of assessment.
Coordinated with the Primary PRU
5.2Education for pupils excluded from school