Accommodating students excluded from regular schools in schools of isolated and distance education.

In Western Australia there is a relatively small number of students whose behaviour is so severe that they are precluded from participating in regular schools. One alternative education placement for these students has been to enrol them in the Schools of Isolated and Distance Education (SIDE) program. This research reviews the enrolment of excluded students at SIDE as perceived by the personnel who provide this service. A number of key issues emerge that pertain specifically to student learning, communication, attitude and the lack of availability of appropriate alternative programs for these students.

Introduction

The exclusion of students from Western Australian government schools is a contentious issue because of the range of perspectives that exist regarding exclusion. One view, which is strongly supported by research, holds that denying a student access to a regular school seriously impacts on the student's educational progress and social development (Costenbader & Markson, 1998; Evans & Gardner, 1994). Another equally strongly held view, which is enshrined in legislation, is that students, teachers and parents have a right to a safe working environment where the educational needs of all students are respected (School Education Act, 1999, WA; Department of Education, 2000). Controversy also arises about the educational options available to students who are excluded from schools, the availability of programs, the appropriateness of the programs that are offered, and the prospect that such students may continue to be disadvantaged by the available educational alternatives (Macpherson, 1992; Vickers, 1993).

In WA on-site and off-site intervention education programs exist. They are established to address the literacy, behavioural and social needs of students who, for a range of reasons, cannot be accommodated in mainstream schooling. These programs are designed to create viable educational offerings so that a student's behaviour will not result in exclusion. There are, however, some students whose actions are such that exclusion from their regular school is seen as the only alternative. When this occurs alternative placements are made available to government school students. One of these alternatives is SIDE.

SIDE is the Department of Education's provider of distance learning and is located on six campuses: Leederville (Primary K-7, Middle 8-10 and Post-Compulsory 11-12 schools), Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland, Meekatharra, Carnarvon and Derby (Schools of the Air, or SOTAs). Their primary responsibility is to deliver education to geographically isolated students. In 2002 there was a total of 126 full-time equivalent educational staff employed at SIDE to cater for the diverse range of students. Over the last 20 years, SIDE data indicates that it has also become an alternative placement for students excluded from government schools. These students are enrolled in SIDE's Referral Program. The SIDE Referral Program mainly caters for students in the primary and middle years, who for a range of reasons, including psychological or psychiatric problems, medical conditions, detention and exclusion, are unable to attend regular schools. The types of behaviour that cause students to be excluded from schools include violence towards other students and staff and endangering the safety of the school site. Approximately 10 to 20 students have been enrolled in the SIDE Referral Program each year during the past decade. In 2002, there were 12 students enrolled in the program.

The Referral Program is supported by teachers across all learning areas, two school psychologists, and two learning support teachers. Enrolment in the SIDE Referral Program is always intended to be short term as this is in line with the general belief that a return to a mainstream school is in the best interests of the child (Parffrey, 1995). The appropriateness of SIDE as an alternative program is debatable, given that it has been found in other countries that many of the students whose behaviour leads to exclusion have special educational and behavioural needs (Harris, Eden, & Blair, 2000) and the SIDE approach is not designed to cater for them (Macpherson, 1992; Vickers, 1993).

The SIDE site that provides the Referral Program for students who are excluded is located in a metropolitan suburb of Perth, WA. The area is well serviced by public transport, including a nearby rail network. While older students would travel independently, younger students would usually be brought to the site by their parents. There is no set time that students are expected to spend at SIDE as this will vary depending on the location and needs of each student. Students are usually encouraged to attend at least half a day per week. Metropolitan-based students tend to visit the site to meet regularly with their teachers. Referral students will often have a regular schedule of visits as the psychologist and learning support teachers are working on special programs. When students are located in rural and remote areas contact is by telephone and in liaison with other local agencies.

For all students participating in any of the distance education programs including the Referral Program, there is an expectation that they will have the assistance of a home tutor to supervise the program, liaise with the teacher/s, and manage student behaviour. The home tutor needs to be provided by the family and work with the student on a daily basis in partnership with the teacher to deliver the educational program in the home. Home tutors are usually parents, most often mothers who also have a myriad of other duties to perform. The role of the home tutor has previously been identified as pivotal in ensuring the success of distance education programs for school-aged students (Louden & Rivalland, 1995; Rivalland, Rohl & Smith, 2001).This is particularly pertinent for students enrolled in the Referral Program who, due to their often significant behaviour problems, find great difficulty in maintaining the home-based program.

Whether the educational provision at SIDE meets the needs of students excluded from government schools in WA is the focus of this study. The study was designed to investigate the views of personnel who work closely with excluded students once they commence at SIDE. The research aimed to identify the issues associated with the enrolment of students at SIDE who have been excluded from regular schools.

Methodology

Introduction

An inductive analytical approach was adopted for this study. The inductive process involves moving from specific observations and collection of fact to use of these as the basis for making a generalisation. According to Burns (1990), the flaw in the inductive approach is the impossibility of unbiased observation of the basic events/facts, as each observer perceives and interprets what he/she sees in subtly different ways from any other observer, with past experience, personality and expectation all influencing the observation of the event.

The interview was chosen as the research tool because it provides for the exploration of complex issues in detail and allows for the researcher to provide clarification to probe and prompt (Cresswell, 2002). Other factors, such as flexibility, the anticipated willingness of participants to talk rather than write, and the need for extended responses, also influenced the selection of interviews as the research tool. These advantages were considered to outweigh factors often considered to be disadvantages of interviews, such as the time involved, the interviewer effect, and difficulties in categorising and evaluating responses (Burns, 1990).

A structured schedule was used for the interviews in an attempt to make the realisation of the interview as consistent as possible across the sample and to minimise the impact of the bias described by Burns (1990). The research aimed to investigate the main issues regarding enrolling students excluded from regular schools in the distance education mode at SIDE. Probe questions were developed and trialled with an experienced SIDE learning area teacher who has worked with students referred to SIDE's Referral Program. The questions were modified in the light of feedback received about reducing ambiguity and moving from general to more specific questions.

Participants

The participants for the study were personnel working with students who have been excluded from regular schools and consequently enrolled at SIDE. Six participants, four based on-site at SIDE and two off-site, took part in the study. The four on-site participants were a psychologist, a learning support teacher, a learning area teacher, and a program coordinator. The off-site participants were a social worker, who is also the executive officer for exclusion panels in an education district, and a teacher employed at an education district off-site program for students at educational risk to tutor an excluded student.

Procedure

All participants responded to the same set of open-ended questions, and all interviews were tape-recorded. Interviews with the four on-site participants were conducted in the recording studio at SIDE so that high quality tape production was achieved. A time limit of 30 minutes was set for each interview. Due to time constraints, the two off-site participants were provided with a blank tape and recorded their own responses to the questions, then sent the tape to the researcher. Where necessary, the researcher contacted the participants to clarify any points in the responses that were unclear. The amount of information provided by each of the participants in response to the questions varied, with some including vignettes of particular students to highlight their responses to the questions, while others provided brief to-the-point responses.

Analysis

The interviews were analysed to identify key issues and common themes. This involved listening to the interviews twice in order to identify common themes. Responses were categorised thematically on a coding chart. In order to be identified as a theme, the issue had to be commented on by at least two of the participants. The data were then analysed and interpreted in light of the purpose of the investigation that was to identify the issues associated with the enrolment of students excluded from regular schools at SIDE.

Results and discussion

There were four main themes that emerged from the data regarding the issues associated with enrolling excluded students in SIDE. These themes were student learning issues; student communication; the attitude of students, parents and teachers; and the availability and appropriateness of alternative programs.

Student learning issues

As Table 1 indicates, participants, particularly the on-site SIDE participants, commented on the learning issues that confront excluded students. Comments were made regarding home supervision, gaps in schooling, the inappropriateness of SIDE teaching and learning materials, the short concentration span of students, literacy levels and issues with the Curriculum Framework.

All the participants identified home supervision as an important issue, with one of the participants, a learning area teacher, stating that it was the biggest issue. As articulated by this participant:</p> <pre> I believe the biggest issue is close and consistent home supervision and this is often lacking ... they need constant supervision at home to achieve success and often there is so much conflict in the family that by the time the kid is excluded from school, the feeling is almost, I've had enough, I'm going to hand this on to you now'. </pre> <p>Five of the six participants made reference to the gaps in schooling experienced by many students who have been excluded from school. The gaps in schooling have occurred because exclusion usually follows periods of suspension when the education program is interrupted. If the student has not been suspended prior to exclusion they have often had significant absences from school. As a result, many students have literacy problems because they have missed out on the teaching and learning which is so crucial to the achievement of educational outcomes. Likewise, student behaviour and short concentration spans were considered to impact on a student's ability to engage with a distance education program. Four of the participants commented that the SIDE programs, while providing an interim education program, did nothing to address the behavioural issues which are often the reason for a student being excluded from school. The SIDE psychologist referred to the need for a collaborative, inter-agency approach to working with excluded students so that the issues that have resulted in exclusion can be addressed.

SIDE participants commented on the inappropriateness of the SIDE learning and teaching materials and this can probably be attributed to their experiences with using the materials with students who have literacy difficulties. For example, SIDE teachers commented that:</p> <pre>

It is difficult in our job to remediate students--often reading

levels are very low and our materials are still heavily print-based.

and The materials are too difficult so then you have to find something that will hopefully engage them [students] and from which they can learn something. </pre> <p>One of the participants also commented on the high cost to SIDE of providing learning materials to excluded students, because the students generally do not return resources. It is noteworthy that neither of the off-site participants made reference to learning materials, and the reasons for this need to be explored further. A likely explanation is that the off-site participants do not use the SIDE learning materials when working with students. Other comments of relevance include the reference made by two of the participants to the Curriculum Framework, which establishes the learning outcomes expected of all students from kindergarten to Year 12. Many of the staff working with excluded students have difficulty reconciling their own experiences working with excluded students with the philosophical and policy framework in which they are required to operate. For example, one teacher suggested that as inclusivity is a major principle of the Curriculum Framework (Curriculum Council, 1998, p. 35), schools have a responsibility to provide appropriate programs on the school site; hence the notion of exclusion is at odds with the Curriculum Framework. In qualifying these comments, the teacher did not believe that teachers have the expertise to deal with really difficult students and questioned why these students should be allowed to jeopardise other students' right to learn. A teacher commented on the irrelevance of the Curriculum Framework and the outcomes, as they are stated, for excluded students. This opinion is contrary to the legislated policy that the Curriculum Framework is for all students (School Education Act, 1999, WA), but an indication of the scepticism some teachers feel about the notion of inclusivity for all students. Student learning was the major theme emerging from the interview data and obviously the issue of most concern to SIDE staff who work with students excluded from regular schools.

Student communication

The four SIDE participants referred to issues with student communication, while neither of the two off-site participants commented on this issue. There are several facets to student communication as shown in Table 2.

The main references to student communication related to difficulties in establishing and maintaining contact with students. Three participants indicated that students resist contact. Their comments included:</p>

<pre> They don't seem to be able to follow a schedule and contact me when they need to--the onus is on me to contact them. I tried to contact a student for a month and the phone was off the hook--he just wasn't contactable. They are difficult to contact so I try and encourage them to come into SIDE regularly. </pre> <p>Participants also identified the irregular hours kept by many students as affecting their ability to establish and maintain regular communication. Comments included:</p> <pre> These students don't work [schoolwork] regular hours--they are often on the Internet all night and sleep in all day and we are told not to contact them in the afternoon, which is a problem in itself. and They tend to be a lot more mobile than regular students, out and about all the time and difficult to pin down to a timetable. </pre> <p>Two SIDE teachers also commented on students' inabilities to articulate their requirements, with a learning area teacher stating:</p> <pre> They are poor communicators--often they can't articulate to me where they are having problems with the materials, whether it is the learning materials, not being able to read the materials of whether they are simply unfamiliar with the concepts. </pre> <p>In defence of the students, the SIDE psychologist referred to students lacking the skills and support to phone teachers. The students have been in conflict with teachers and schools and therefore avoid contact with organisations with which they have had only negative experiences. It is noteworthy that neither of the offsite participants--a social worker, who is also the executive officer for a district exclusion panel, and a teacher employed as a home tutor--referred to student communication as an issue. This may be indicative of the quite different situations in which they engage with students. The social worker/executive officer sees students in structured meeting situations and the tutor visits the student's home, while contact between on-site SIDE teachers and students is often a two-way process, where students are expected to initiate and maintain contact. SIDE teachers also base their expectations of students on what occurs with regular students. Communication between teachers, students and parents is crucial when working in the distance mode, and where this is lacking the educational program is jeopardised.

Student, parent and teacher attitudes

The third major theme that emerged from the data was the attitude of students, parents and teachers to exclusion (Table 3).

While student attitude is reflected in student learning issues and communication, there was consistent reference in the interviews to students excluded from schools lacking the motivation and the self-discipline to work independently on a distance education program. Two on-site SIDE participants referred to cultural issues and different value systems, specifically in reference to students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and how this impacted on the student's willingness to engage with the education program. Comments included:</p> <pre>

They don't want to be part of the school system. For a lot of Aboriginal students distance education just doesn't work. We are not very good with Aboriginal students who don't have the resources and home environment to support their education. </pre> <p>Parental attitudes were also referred to as an issue, because many parents are resistant to having their child enrolled at SIDE and would Far prefer their child to remain in a regular school situation.

Where parents have also had negative experiences with the school system they are dubious about the value of the programs that are offered to students. As has already been discussed, all participants identified the inability of parents to supervise and provide support in the home as a major issue.

The expectations of SIDE teachers was also identified as an issue by two of the on-site SIDE participants. The belief that generally students in the Referral Program do little work appears to be a widely held view. Comments included:</p> <pre> The students require a lot of individualised attention and the development of an individual education program isn't particularly successful--I do a lot more work than they do. Teacher expectations of excluded students are low because they know the students will not do very much work.

Students are enrolled and then drift away--they are on the books

but that is it--silent partners! It's all very well for the Department of Education to enrol [excluded students at SIDE] but what results are being achieved and what is the follow-up? From my perspective, very little. </pre> <p>The success of any educational program is dependent on positive attitudes and the willingness of stakeholders to collaborate to provide the most appropriate program for the student. The interview data would indicate that exclusion arouses a range of negative attitudes that would need to be addressed if students are to be given every opportunity to progress.

Availability and appropriateness of alternative programs

The fourth theme identified from the data was the availability and appropriateness of alternative programs for students excluded from schools (Table 4).

Four of the participants referred to the current debate about off-site and on-site programs for students at risk of being excluded from school and for those students who have been excluded. They expressed the view that there should be off-site programs for students, but acknowledged that the Department of Education (WA) does not generally support this view. One participant commented that:</p> <pre> Schools are not generally geared up to cope with these type of kids [students whose behaviour leads to exclusion]. Schools don't want difficult kids. The resources that are required to integrate an excluded student back into a mainstream school are exorbitant and costly resources are limited. I really believe we need an off-campus program--many people don't agree with me. </pre> <p>Similarly, another participant who was in favour of a specialist unit but not necessarily off the school site commented:</p> <pre> [The Department of Education needs] to set up specialist schools for these kids in clusters ... so kids can be seen by specialist teachers, where they can get help with anger management and all their other problems, it doesn't necessarily have to be off the school-site. Second to that is getting specialist tutoring at home--either of these is preferable to working in an isolated situation. </pre> <p>While participants were generally supportive of off-site programs, there was a lack of awareness of the type of alternative education programs that are available for excluded students. Participants made reference to high-profile alternative programs (e.g. Fast Track, Year 10, Gnowangerup Agricultural School, Fairbridge, Bindoon Agricultural School), but most acknowledged that their awareness of programs was limited. As would be expected, the social worker and the SIDE psychologist had the most knowledge of alternative education programs. The social worker and psychologist referred to issues with case management and the need for closer collaboration between SIDE and district offices, and the establishment of partnerships to facilitate the return of a student to a regular school. As espoused by one participant:</p>

<pre> I don't believe that SIDE in its own right or in isolation is sufficient for the kids we are dealing with. SIDE is used as a stop-gap to provide an academic program, but [the students] need to engage in other programs like behaviour management because it's usually not wholly an academic or social problem but a whole load of factors. </pre> <p>It was suggested that SIDE does have a role with excluded students, particularly students in country areas, but there needs to be a partnership with the district offices and other agencies, rather than the student becoming SIDE's sole responsibility. It was also suggested that while SIDE can provide the educational program and learning materials, district education offices should be responsible for organising a suitable venue where the student can receive support and assistance with the education program and their behavioural problems. All the alternative programs need to be explored by district offices before determining that SIDE is the best option for the student. One particular problem that was noted is that students are enrolled at SIDE but there is no end-date to their enrolment, which makes it difficult to implement an action plan for the student's re-entry into a regular school. The complexities of the overall management of excluded students, including liaison with parents/caregivers and providing a range of programs, were raised as concerns.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the views of personnel who work closely with excluded students once they commence at SIDE in WA and to identify the issues associated with the enrolment of these students at SIDE. The data indicate four main issues: student learning issues; student communication; the attitude of students, parents and teachers; and the availability and appropriateness of alternative programs that are associated with the enrolment of excluded students at SIDE. The SIDE participants focused on student learning issues, including issues with communication, literacy levels and the inappropriateness of SIDE learning materials for students who have been excluded from school. It would appear from the interview data that the SIDE participants, while acknowledging that excluded students require individualised, specialist support and an appropriate educational program, are of the opinion that enrolment at SIDE is not the best option for these students.

Catering for the specialist needs of students excluded from regular schools requires examination of all the available options so that a decision is made in the best interests of the student while being manageable by the support staff. Macpherson (1992) and Vickers (1993) have both previously raised the issue of the appropriateness of alternative programs for excluded students in WA. It would seem clear from this present research that students who are enrolled in the SIDE program because they have been excluded from a regular school are not receiving a consistent and continued educational program that best meets their needs.

Many student learning issues were raised that limited students' ability to access or engage with the program being offered. In addition, while enrolled in the SIDE program this did not address the behavioural issues that were the cause of the exclusion, with re-entry back into a regular school not being planned for. As these students were those with the most challenging behaviours, who had frequently been truants from school, many students were difficult to contact and lacked the self-discipline necessary to maintain communication with their SIDE teachers. Participants posited that in order to provide a more appropriate program for students who need to be excluded from regular classes, a cohesive and structured intersystemic collaborative approach needs to be established. The development of partnerships with other agencies and increased opportunities to review alternative programs and placements in collaboration with the student, prior to enrolling in SIDE, may lead to more appropriate placements that can meet the specific needs of individual students.

Exclusion and the enrolment of excluded students at SIDE are likely to continue to be contentious topics. Increasingly, educators are questioning what happens to students when they are excluded from mainstream schooling and further research in the area is required to better inform decision-making.

Keywords

integration (disabled students) mainstreaming special education curriculum adaptation special schools isolated students

References

Burns, R. B. (1990). Introduction to research methods in education. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Costenbader, V., & Markson, S. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 59-82.

Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for kindergarten to Year 12 education in Western Australia. Osborne Park, WA: Author.

Department of Education. (2000). Behaviour management in schools. Perth: WA: Author.

Evans, D., & Gardner, J. (1994). Behaviour problems: School exclusions and school non-attendance. In M. Tainsh & J. Izard (Eds.), Widening horizons: New challenges, directions and achievements (pp. 42-50). Melbourne: ACER.

Harris, N., Eden, K., & Blair, A. (2000). Challenges to school exclusion: Exclusion appeals and the law. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Louden, W., & Rivalland, J. (1995). Literacy at a distance: Language and learning in distance education. Perth, WA: Edith Cowan University.

Macpherson, A. (1992). The exclusion of disruptive students from Western Australian government schools 1984-1990. Unpublished master's thesis, University of WA, Perth, WA.

Parffrey, V. (1995). Exclusion: Failed children or system failure? In P. Farrell (Ed.), Children with emotional and behavioural difficulties (pp. 127-35). London: The Falmer Press.

Rivalland, J., Rohl, M., & Smith, P. (2001). Supporting students with learning difficulties in a School of the Air. Perth: Edith Cowan University.

School Education Act 1999 (WA) Division 5, (s.91). Perth, WA: Government Publishing Service.

Vickers, I. (1993). Exclusion: Procedures and provisions in Western Australia with special reference to the role of the Distance Education Centre in the accommodation of excluded students. Unpublished master's thesis, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA.

Chris Forlin is a visiting professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, Counselling and Learning Needs at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Rd, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. Email: [e-mail]

Gay Tierney works in Schools of Isolated and Distance Education at the Western Australian Department of Education and Training, PO Box 455, Leederville WA 6903.

Chris Forlin

Hong Kong Institute of Education

Gay Tierney

Western Australian Department of Education and Training

Table 1 Theme 1: Student learning issues

                                       Participants 1-6

                                    SIDE on-site    Off-site

Student learning issues             1   2   3   4    5   6   Total

Home supervision                    x   x   x   x    x   x     6
Gaps in schooling                   x   x   x   x    x         5
Behaviour                           x   x       x    x         4
Inappropriate teaching and
  learning materials                x   x   x   x              4
Short concentration span            x   x   x   x              4
Individual Education Plans              x   x   x              3
Literacy levels                     x       x   x              3
Curriculum Framework--inclusivity   x       x                  2

Table 2 Theme 2: Student communication

                                      Participants 1-6

                                     On-site      Off-site

Facets of student communication   1   2   3   4    5   6     Total

Difficult to contact              x   x   x   x                4
Irregular hours                   x       x   x                3
Resist contact                    x       x   x                3
Inarticulate                      x           x                2

Table 3 Theme 3: Attitudes of the student, parents, teacher

                                      Participants 1-6

                                    On-site      Off-site
Attitudes of the student,
parents, teacher                 1   2   3   4    5   6     Total

Student attitude
--communication                  x   x   x   x    x           5
--self-discipline                x   x   x   x    x           5
--self-motivation                x   x   x   x                4
--cultural background                x       x                2
Parent attitude
--unable to supervise, provide
  support                        x   x   x   x    x    x      6
--resistant                      x   x   x                    3
Teacher attitude
--reduced expectations           x   x                        2

Table 4 Theme 4: Availability and appropriateness of alternative
programs

                                        Participants 1-6

                                      On-site      Off-site   Total

Availability and appropriateness
of alternative programs            1   2   3   4    5   6

Off-site/on-site argument          x   x   x        x           4
Lack of awareness                  x   x       x                3
Partnership with SIDE              x   x            x           3
Case management                        x            x           2