There is widespread consensus in the research and policy-related literature over the last decade that young people who have been permanently excluded from school are at a far greater risk of a variety of negative outcomes than young people who have not had this experience. These negative outcomes include prolonged periods out of education and/or employment; poor mental and physical health; involvement in crime; and homelessness. This article presents evidence from a small-scale qualitative study of destinations and outcomes post-exclusion for a group of young people considered to be at particular risk of such negative outcomes: namely, those who have been permanently excluded from special schools or pupil referral units (now known as short-stay schools). The specific focus of this paper is on the 24 young people's educational trajectories pre-and post-exclusion; the reasons for their exclusion from school; and on what forms of alternative provision were available to them after their permanent exclusion.

Abstract:Family policy was a key component of the 'New' Labour government's family, social, and education policy, and a range of family focused initiatives and interventions designed to 'support' families and improve individual, family, and social outcomes were introduced. The post-May 2010 coalition government's family policy exhibits elements of policy continuity.There have been class-based critiques of this approach to social policy, which have argued participating parents was also interviewed using semi-structured interview schedules. The evidence from the evaluation showed the heterogeneous class nature of the PEIP cohorts, which over the roll-out of the initiative, incorporated a larger number of middle-class parents.The qualitative data indicated that parents had positive participant perceptions of PEIP courses, characterised by 'mutual reach', and did not experience the courses in classed terms. The evidence from the data collected for the national evaluation suggests that it is difficult to conceptualise the PEIP, in class terms -such an approach requires, at the least, major qualification.

This paper explores why some special educational needs (SEN) disagreements become very distressing for parents and how such disagreements can be prevented or resolved. It is a qualitative study of the experiences of 78 parents (70 mothers, eight fathers) who participated in a national study of experiences of England's SEN disagreement resolution system, 2015-17. The study took place in the context of the biggest reform of the English SEN legal landscape since the seminal Warnock Report in 1978: the Children and Families Act 2014. This legislation extended aspects of individual statutory rights for parents and for the child/young person with SEN and increased expectations of their meaningful involvement in the assessment of needs and planning of provision to meet those needs. It also had a much greater focus on partnership working as a way to prevent disagreements and made statutory the requirement to offer mediation to support early resolution of disagreements. Data were analyzed inductively using the Framework approach and then interpreted in the light of stress theory and the "drama triangle." The main findings are that disagreements are initially driven by a belief that the child's SEN are not being met; and that complaints and disagreements are subsequently driven by experiences of delays and role dissonance during the process of seeking to have the child's needs met. The parental experience of distress can be understood in the light of classic stress theory. The emotional intensity and metaphors of battle can be understood as part of a "drama script." Prevention and early resolution are aided by professionals and practitioners showing empathy, having the knowledge, skills, and understanding to do their job properly, taking responsibility to redress wrongs, by greater investment in the SEN system (staff, staff training, range of appropriate educational provision), and by parents offering peer support. This paper is unique in two ways: in covering parents' experiences across the English SEN disagreement resolution system and in interpreting our findings using psychological frameworks to understand what drives the intensity of such disagreements-and therefore of the way through them to resolution and improved prevention.

No abstract