The Perceived benefits of a Pupil Referral Unit

The Perceived benefits of a scholarly person Referral UnitIn todays indian lodge it is vastly accepted that e very(prenominal) infant has the recompense to an facts of life. Therefore, even youthfulsterren who show signs of ch in allenging deportment in aims should be entitled to the same attention from lag and the same standard of knowledge as new(prenominal) peasantren in the school.However, there atomic physique 18 some children who poopnot be educated at heart the confines of a mainstream school for a variety of contrasting discernments. Sodha and Margo (2010) rich person produced data that suggests 7.4% of children may have ADHD 15% of 15 year olds have conduct worrys around 15% of children who start school at age tail fin have troublesome behaviour that might make it difficult to learn and research suggests that up to 5% of pupils display challenging behaviour at some stage in their school c argoner.In response to these problems Pupil Referral Units (PRU s) were set up. They provided a service which operates outside of mainstream schools and is designed to support children with challenging behaviour and prognosticate their behaviour in a more nurturing environment so as to meet their often very complex needs. Get the Right School, (2000-2011)Challenging BehaviourChallenging behaviour can be aspect of as universe a conflict amidst a child and the environment according to Loreman (2005). Loreman explains that these conflicts can occur when a child responds to his or her educational environment in manners that differ importantly from age-appropriate expectations and interfere with his or her own learning. This definition faces to suggest, however, that these conflicts argon cod to an inherent fault inside the child that necessitates the removal of that child from a mainstream school. A more reasonable explanation is that these conflicts occur not nevertheless because of the child, scarcely besides due to the reaction of th e professional or service in response to their behaviour, and it is this reaction, consequently, that determines whether the behaviour is challenging of not. (Clark, and Griffiths 2008). This suggests that there is a fundamental need that the service or member of staff, should possess a contingent level of ability to enable them to understand and recognise the needs of the child, and it is this ability, therefore, that would determine whether the behaviour of the child was actually challenging or not.There is a whole range of reasons why young the great unwashed may be required to attend a PRU. Cohen and Hughes, (1994) for example, suggest that these children fall into two distinct categories. Firstly, children who have recognised learning disabilities and fussy emotional and behavioural problems, and secondly, those whose behaviour is so disruptive that the mainstream schools decide they cannot assert the appropriate care and help. However in some(prenominal) cases both catego ries can apply to a child even though the causative and associative factors may differ.However there are a emerging number of children who have none of these specific problems but are required to attend a PRU, children who bonnie find it hard to adjust to mainstream schools and also pregnant girls. (DCSF 2008) It can be seen that there is a widely varying mix of children attending these centres.Importance of a Pupil Referral UnitThe latest national statistics on permanent and fixed period riddances from mainstream schools in England produced by the the Department for Education (2010), suggests that that there was an estimated 6,550 permanent exclusions from primary, mainstream substitute(prenominal) and all special schools in 2008/09. The DfE also stated that there were 12,800 young the great unwashed attending Pupil Referral Units in 2010.Additionally, permanent exclusion from a school has been linked to wider exclusion from society and in orderliness to all overcome this, th e education system needs to work towards achieving a school which is inclusive for all young people by adopting a culture, pedagogy and curriculum which will support all learners who attend schools which are in areas that have been characterised by affable exclusion. (Hayton, 1999)It has also become apparent that there are more and more mixed views indoors education as a whole, and even the professionals operative within the Pupil Referral Units themselves, head issue on how to deal with young people that actually have more complex needs. Sonia Sodha (2010) makes the point that PRUs are world seen increasingly as sin bins or dumping grounds that schools use to remove problem children from their responsibility. Additionally, the resultant roleant enforced association with anti-social peers, may be counterproductive and actually increase behavioural problems.However, the benefits of a PRU may be perceived very differently from different peoples perspectives. Management and emp loyed staff working within PRUs have just as high a responsibility as any different teacher in mainstream schools, to enable the young people to achieve their full potential in their education and support them in preparing and furthering their personal understanding of what is expected of them within their working life after school. (Ofsted 2005)The yearbook Report of Her Majestys Chief Inspector of Schools (2004) states that the number of PRUs has steadily increased. The report states that 25 out of 38 PRUs inspected in 2004/05, were good or better, providing effectively for the young people they serve. The report also stated that in almost all units, the pupils behaviour and attitudes to learning were judged to have correctd since the pupils joined them after moving from their previous schools.It is therefore apparent that for the majority of its children, PRUs do provide an essential and relevant service that cannot be provided in a mainstream school. But is this service based on a one size fits all root word? For as we have seen many children have very different problems and needs and it is the sheer diversity of pupils for whom homework within a PRU must cater, that presents the main obstacle to the perceived success of this type of setting. (DCSF 2008).Indeed, according to Gray, (2002), a number of PRU staff would argue that many young people are wrongly placed within PRUs and in actual fact should be placed in more suitable settings for their particular needs e.g. in day or residential special schools. They also argue that reintegration rates would be higher(prenominal) if these pupils within the provision, had less complex needs, and those with much more complex needs should be placed elsewhere for a more appropriate provision in relation to those needs. However, budgetary limitations may sound save this type of provision emerging. Gray, (2002), explains that the costs per place for these kind of special school provisions are typically more expe nsive then PRUs probably being for greater than existing financial provision within the LEA.Barriers to LearningExclusion and truancy are a fundamental challenge in all areas of education and the numbers of truanting and excluded children every day is in the tens of thousands which will have far reaching and serious implications on their education. Rendall, and Stuart (2005). For this reason local Authorities are actively working together with schools to enable the process between the transfer of a young person from a mainstream school to PRU to be as quick as possible, as well as ensuring they follow all the correct procedures. However the period between pupils being referred to a PRU and actually beginning their time there can often be quite a lengthy period and result in a significant amount of education time being lost. DCSF (2008)Ofsted,( 2007), identified particular challenges that a large variety of different PRUS were now facing, when providing children and young people wit h a good education. They cited a number of factors, such as pupils with diverse needs and who are of differing age groups, and many pupils arrive with no planning or preparation for those special needs. Staffing issues were also highlighted regarding the limited number of specializer staff who could broaden the curriculum. They also state the difficulties PRUs faced regarding the reintegrating pupils back into mainstream schools.Poor accommodation is also a major factor which can seriously limit the scope of the curriculum available to be taught due to inadequate space. This is peculiarly relevant in relation to physical education, ICT design and technology, art and music. Therefore Local Authorities have to take this on board when managing education building assets by surveying buildings regularly and prioritising building work including Pupil Referral Units in their plans. DCSF (2008)Longman, and Agar, (1999), also make reference to similar barriers of learning within PRUs, and suggested that many PRUs were physically very small ,with limited staff and facilities. This they suggested, made the provision of expertise and the wide range of practical apparatus that was essential for the success of the PRU, very problematical.The success of PRUs is essentially down to the way they respond to challenges set and the help and support they receive from their Local Authorities (LAs). The LAs therefore have a specific responsibility in relation to these problems and are required to intervene and take action particularly regarding resources and building issues. (Ofsted, 2007).The Governments policy which is set out under The Childrens Act 2004 aims to improve the outcomes for all children and young people. However many children and young people who attend PRUs are vulnerable or disadvantaged, and therefore may face more barriers to learning compared to other young people and are at much higher risk of failure as a result. (Department for Education and Skills, 2007), PRUs and Reintegration into Mainstream EducationHayward, (2006), also makes the point that in theory temporary or part time placements in pupil referral units are available. However, as they are rapidly filling up this is not actually the case, and many young people are continuing their stay into long term placements, which is a real cause for concern as there is no availability for the young people who need short term placements within them. Therefore, it would appear on this evidence that PRUs are in actual fact, not fulfilling their purpose of supporting young people, specifically within the process of reintegrating children and young people back into mainstream schools.Within the actual process of reintegration, there are a large number of different supporting roles designed to help support the pupils that attend, by enabling them receive a good education and help them to achieve their full potential with regard to their social and emotional development during their time in the setting. Kyriacou, (2003), discusses a number of studies that have taken place over the years whichhighlight the important role that needs to be played by inter force cooperation both in supporting pupils and schools when a pupil is at risk of exclusion and in parcel to support a pupil returning to school after a fixed period exclusion or moving to a new school after a permanent exclusion.One particular study carried out by Normington and Kyriacou (1999) emphasises the importance of communication between agencies. Within this study a number of professionals, such as education psychologists, education welfare officers and teachers to name but a few, were interviewed and asked to focus on the interdisciplinary work that follows permanent exclusions for a sample of pupils who were based at a pupil referral unit. The overall outcome from all professionals involved, suggested that the interagency cooperation is often hampered by heavy case loads and by difficulties in the different a gencies keeping each other fully informed. Normington and Kyriacou (1999) cited in Kyriacou, (2003).The professionals taking part in the study also mentioned how improved resources were key, to becoming more successful in this area of interagency cooperation.ConclusionWhile the need for a PRU is becoming more essential, the findings of Ofsted (2007), reflect a very disappointing situation, with many Pupil Referral Units described as offering an uninspiring curriculum and with a lack of clear vision. The report stated these points as the reason for the failure to reduce days lost as a result of exclusion and failure to improve pupils attendance. It is therefore apparent that while many Pupil Referral Units are an essential struggling to fulfil their responsibilities, particularly in reintegrating young people back into mainstream education. It should be remembered that this was the purpose they were specifically set up to fulfil. wholly the PRUs made sure personal and social developm ent wasemphasised it was integrated into all lessons and activities, as well as being taughtwell at discrete times. The PRUs generally monitored personal development well butacademic progress less so.I am currently in the process of researching one particular Pupil Referral Unit, which I attended as part of my placement, and I am particularly interested to take care to the views of both the staff and students of this PRU and focus on what they perceive as the benefits, if any, of attending the PRUA number of the staff at this PRU have expressed their opinion that many of these children would benefit more from being referred to a depart provision such as a special school, which focuses on their particular needs in more depth.New InitiativesThe DCSF report (2008) maintains that due to the challenges posed by these particular children it is important that PRUs are forever assessing their procedures and instigating new systems and initiatives to support the ever changing demands pres ented by the young people in their provision. For example the PRU where I have been on placement is currently rolling out the practice of Restorative Justice.Wright (1999 cited in Hopkins, 2004) states that revitalising justice is not about stating who is to blame and what the punishment will be as a result of a persons detrimentful actions, but to explore deeper into what happened and being able to put more time into repairing harm done to relationships.The process involves asking questions such as Who has been affected by what happened? How can we put right the harm? What have we learnt from what has happened and how to make different choices next time? In basic terms quinine water justice is a new approach for dealing with situations in a more effective and appointed light, enabling young people to move forward in their relationships and learn from what they have done. Wright, (1999), cited in Hopkins, B, (2004).