How Jersey is not looking after its looked after children
Unless direct action is taken, gross inequality will persist within our education system
It is a scandal that performance data for vulnerable children on Jersey is one of the lowest across the whole of the UK. Vulnerable children in Jersey schools have a pass rate at GCSE level of only 15% (compared to 66% for all pupils) less than half of that in the UK. The pass rate for looked after children is even lower. At KS2 the pass rate for reading is 57% which is much lower than the total for all pupils (82%). This is higher than the UK.
Why do these children perform so badly and why does their performance deteriorate as they pass through full-time education? Is it a question of absence? LAC pupils with an attendance rate below 90% increases through the key stages (from 0% in KS1 to 58% in KS4). This is twice as high as that for the UK. External suspensions given at primary level is only 14% of that issued in secondary schools and are, once more, twice that of the UK. Children with special needs are 40% more likely to be excluded from secondary school. For most of the vulnerable children, our education system is inclusive on paper only.
There are those that believe such children are born to fail.
They are just too ‘damaged’ and the returns on trying to engage them are not worth the costs involved. Some even perceive these children as a drain on a school, on its resources, on staff time and patience. There are just too many barriers. Are the hurdles really so insurmountable that providing vulnerable children with an education best suited to their needs is not worth the effort? Pupil premium funding appears to be having little effect and there is precious little information about its progress. The breakdown of pupil premium on the island shows that 74% was spent on additional teaching support and almost 20% on equipment but only 3% was allocated for staff training and here lies the key to solving the conundrum.
For many years resources have been thrown at ‘underachievers’ without adequate staff training and staffing. These children are often difficult and disaffected, unwilling to be supported because to do so is tantamount to having a dunce’s hat placed on their head, especially at secondary level. The quality of support is often just a body, a willing parent or teaching assistant. Whilst these adults may be dedicated, many lack the training necessary to engage and manage challenging pupils.
Statistics for secondary schools in Jersey show that pupils in the lowest ability cohort made around 40% less progress than those at the top in both mathematics and English. Given a level playing field, pupils should make similar progress no matter what their ability. Intelligence is not fixed so it stands to reason that any child should prosper given the education to match their needs. Having to cope with failure is ‘character building’ but having to deal with constant disappointment is soul-destroying. A watered-down curriculum is not the answer as these children just drown in the shallow end of indifference. They require stimulus, challenge (small steps) and patience.
Teachers, as well as pupils, are often streamed in schools with those lacking the skills to deliver results placed where they have the least impact, namely with children with special needs.
It is a toxic mix in which the child comes off worst.
Teachers that have the capability to facilitate progress with the most challenging pupils are sequestered by school management to work with the brightest to ensure good examination results. The best teachers are facilitators not lecturers. Their lessons are engaging, their expectations high. They have few discipline issues because the children ‘enjoy’ being in their classes. Placed with the ‘right’ teacher, many insurmountable hurdles become manageable. If all teachers/assistants were adequately trained there would be far fewer issues with performance targets or educational inequality.
Do the Minister for Children and the Children’s Commissioner have the power to influence what goes on in schools? The best they can hope for is the establishment of more policies behind which educational administration will hide. Mr Parker’s ‘workforce modernisation’ will do nothing to reduce the gap between disadvantaged children and the rest. The Minister for Education has the power to help the most vulnerable but does she have the resilience to affect cultural change? Unless direct action is taken, gross inequality will persist within our education system and educational neglect will remain with the most vulnerable children continuing to have their human rights abused.
