Correlation and Causation РPX and Prison 

Correlation doesn’t equal Causation 

I had my first holiday Twitter spat on Saturday (I know I couldn’t even last one day). 

It was on permanent exclusions. After a tweet from the Prison Reform Trust arguing the case for criminal leniency for children in care, I drew a comparison with the fate of students excluded from school. 

Lord Laming who undertook the report, was on Radio 4 earlier this week with one example of the police being called because a child in care had taken food from a fridge without permission. 

This story horrified me; I look at my kids who have all done much worse and weep at the idea of them in the care system if my husband and I died. Statistically I know they’re likely to be separated as there are four of them; I know my son at 13 will be the hardest to place and having identical twins, they’d be kept together surely? But if they weren’t, the separation would be doubly damaging, so strong is their bond. 

I also know if one of them had SEN it would place further pressure on the care system and any behaviour issues (two are feisty, two compliant) would be dealt with more severely than we would at home. My goodness, if it’s food out the fridge; I may as well have 999 on speed dial. 

A criminal record for children in care, Lord Laming argues is assuring a future burden on society.

Back then to my Twitter spat; I claimed 47% (although probably a higher proportion as this includes non care system kids) of them, if excluded, were likely to end up in prison. This is the percentage of the prison population who have been permanently excluded from school. 
I was picked up here (probably fairly as I jump on anyone blaming parents for language and literacy difficulties using correlation as cause) because it doesn’t necessarily mean that those 47% wouldn’t end up in prison anyway and that schools may have done everything they could to prevent the exclusion. Fair enough, mea culpa.

My point though was that the label of being permanently excluded is as damaging as the criminal record Lord Laming was criticising. He’s not asking these to be lifted for dangerous criminals but for the petty  instances, allowing care children the best start in adult life.

Many excluded children have: 

SEN 

experienced bereavement 

witnessed domestic violence

been sexually abused

been physically abused

There is a similar pattern for prisoners and with whopping percentages of language and literacy difficulties among the prison community.

Yet, we may not see these children as victims and neither will society when they have a criminal record and permanent exclusion stamped on their forehead before the age of 16. 

Can’t we do better for these kids? Find models known to work and replicate them? These children matter and are society’s responsibility.

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk
http://troublesofyouth.pbworks.com/f/occ71-exclusion.pdf (75% of excluded pupils end up with a criminal conviction)

 http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk

Advertisements

Segregation and Stereotypes 

QT
is trying to be controversial. – so was Toby Young when he called pupils with SEN troglodytes. 
But when does controversy actually become plain offensive? When does controversy perpetuate stereotypes of students with learning difficulties? 

And when does controversy forget that the group they are offending are children? And children with the least resources available to them? Children who may not be able to fight back? 
In my Speech and Language Base (students who access SALT and English but otherwise are educated in the mainstream) are learners who are quiet, studious and tremendously hard working against all odds. Despite the fact that school runs in fast forward for them, some of my students’ attendance records are excellent, behaviour exemplary and they crave quietness so they can concentrate. Yet to QT they are lumped with chair throwing pupils. Let’s be clear; they’re are many neurotypical chair throwers too.
So if we are to segregate by quiet and studious what is the other group? Loud and unscholarly? And are these all people with SEN ? I struggle with opinionated rugby players can we have a separate school for them?
Where does segregation begin and where does it stop? I find people often agree with such ideologies until they or their children are excluded. 
Worst of all, as segregation really is just the inclusion debate between mainstream and special school, no, worst of all is the gross generalisations made about those who the author wishes to segregate. Anyone who has agreed with the blog is complicit in reducing children with SEN to derogatory stereotypes which border on the grotesque. If you’ve met a child with SEN you’ve met one child. 
So no I’m not with you QT and I’d be really disappointed if anyone were. 

Segregation and stereotypes 

QT
is trying to be controversial. – so was Toby Young when he called pupils with SEN troglodytes. 
But when does controversy actually become plain offensive? When does controversy perpetuate stereotypes of students with learning difficulties? 

And when does controversy forget that the group they are offending are children? And children with the least resources available to them? Children who may not be able to fight back? 
In my Speech and Language Base (students who access SALT and English but otherwise are educated in the mainstream) are learners who are quiet, studious and tremendously hard working against all odds. Despite the fact that school runs in fast forward for them, some of my students’ attendance records are excellent, behaviour exemplary and they crave quietness so they can concentrate. Yet to QT they are lumped with chair throwing pupils. Let’s be clear; they’re are many neurotypical chair throwers too.
So if we are to segregate by quiet and studious what is the other group? Loud and unscholarly? And are these all people with SEN ? I struggle with opinionated rugby players can we have a separate school for them?
Where does segregation begin and where does it stop? I find people often agree with such ideologies until they or their children are excluded. 
Worst of all, as segregation really is just the inclusion debate between mainstream and special school, no, worst of all is the gross generalisations made about those who the author wishes to segregate. Anyone who has agreed with the blog is complicit in reducing children with SEN to derogatory stereotypes which border on the grotesque. If you’ve met a child with SEN you’ve met one child. 
So no I’m not with you QT and I’d be really disappointed if anyone were.