This study aims to fill the apparent gap, and present the thoughts and feelings of New Zealand families affected by exclusion.
This report was prepared for the Families Commission Blue Skies Fund by Andrew Smith, Bethlehem Tertiary Institute
Purpose
This report focuses on what the families of students excluded from school think and feel about the process, and what impact their teenagers’ experiences have had on them as families.
The Guidelines for Principals and Boards of Trustees provided by the New Zealand Ministry of Education (MOE) (2003) note that exclusion “can have far-reaching consequences for the student (and other members of their family)” (p.5). McDonald and Thomas (2003) similarly note that exclusion has ramifications beyond the school and the student. However, a significant proportion of research and writing on school exclusion focuses on policy – aims, statistics and alternative processes. Although it seems that research interest is increasing, a perspective that aims to “give a glimpse of the lives behind some of the statistics” (Munn & Lloyd, 2005, p.211) is rare. Several writers have commented that student experience is infrequently presented in discussions of exclusion (see, for example, Brown, 2007; Knipe, Reynolds, & Milner, 2007). Others remark that even less attention is paid to the experiences and opinions of families – particularly the parents and caregivers – of excluded students (Gordon, 2001; McDonald & Thomas, 2003).
This project aims to contribute to the discussion by presenting the experiences of a small group of parents (the people most intimately involved with the long-term care of the young people in question) of students excluded from schools in New Zealand, and to give voice to their thoughts, feelings, hopes and concerns.
Key Results
The few parents whose voices have been heard in the research literature describe a sense of invisibility or powerlessness when their teenagers were excluded from school. The comparative lack of parents’ voices in the research literature on exclusion, mirrors that sense of invisibility or powerlessness. This study sought to give voice to the views of a group of New Zealand caregivers. Disappointingly, the comments of the participants reflect similar parental experience and perception to those reported in previous studies from other countries. The sadness, anger and powerlessness described by caregivers in other studies were similarly reported by parents in this study. Exclusion of a teenager created stress for the families, particularly regarding employment and health issues. The parents reported an experience that was adversarial in nature, and they felt that there was scope for them to have much more involvement and for stronger partnerships between themselves and the schools.
The findings seem disturbing – in terms of concern for the well being of those families – given the volume of research that demonstrates positive outcomes from more collaborative processes.
This conclusion highlights certain aspects of the study that warrant attention. Firstly, the issue of communication and information was consistently mentioned by the participants. While information may be theoretically accessible, it appears that more attention could be given to connecting families to those sources of support. The parents interviewed seemed unaware of resources, in terms of information, internet sites and support services. There was a plea that communication should not be simply informational but also relational.
The desire for a relational connection with a school leads to consideration of the ways in which parents are seen – either as problems or partners. The contrasting discourses in discussions of exclusion merit further attention, both in terms of the goals of the process and in terms of the ways the people involved think about each other. Underpinning philosophies influence policy, and also subconsciously orient people into particular patterns of relating. The self-reported experiences of parents in this study indicate that in practice, if not necessarily by intent, the schools that had excluded or taken steps to exclude their children seem to have created an adversarial and excluding ethos around exclusion, which had negatively affected the families concerned. Such an ethos may make life simpler for the school in the short term, but is likely to be counterproductive for all concerned in the longer term. It also seems out of line with the values being advocated as a foundation of the new curriculum.