Neurodiverse children and children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are significantly over-represented in the school-excluded and youth justice populations both internationally and in the UK.
For example, 80 per cent of children in the youth justice system in England and Wales have identified SEND and the permanent school exclusion rate for children in this group with an education, health and care (EHC) plan is nearly three times higher than children without identified SEND.
This challenge has arisen at a time when school exclusions in England is at an all-time high – 9,376 permanent exclusions (up from 6,495 in 2021/22), and 786,961 fixed term exclusions (up from 578,280 in 2021/22). Article 28 and 29 of the UN Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC) upholds that all children have the right to inclusive, needs-based education, yet we also know that ethnically diverse children, children in poverty, SEND and neurodivergent students, and boys face higher exclusion rates globally.
The rate of neurodiverse children in custody is higher than those serving community sentences:
- In England, up to 90 per cent of children in custody met the diagnostic criteria for a communication disorder.
- In Australia, 89 per cent of children in an Australian study had at least one neurodevelopmental impairment.
- In Canada, youths with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) were at least 19 times more likely to be incarcerated than those without FASD.
Given the wealth of knowledge established about the ‘school to prison pipeline’, it is crucial that we understand why this over-representation exists, and what support can be offered to children and their families to reduce school exclusions and potential youth justice involvement. Indeed, it has been argued that the school to prison pipeline disproportionately impacts neurodivergent children and that school exclusion has been used as a mechanism for the criminalisation of neurodivergent children.
In a paper published earlier this year, I considered data from the Oakshire Family Support Project, which sought to work with children aged 7-11 identified as ‘at risk’ of both school exclusion and potential youth justice involvement.* Parents expressed frustration that they did not get the support they had been crying out for until their child (and family) reached crisis point. The majority of the children referred to the Family Support Project were neurodiverse and I found that family support, containing many features of trauma-informed practice, both acted as a lifeline to children and their families, and significantly reduced school exclusions, improved school attendance, and reduced the likelihood of youth justice involvement in later life.
The trauma-informed features that significantly benefited neurodiverse children and their families included tailored, flexible support; acting as an advocate with education and health professionals; and a needs-led approach to support. Practise was underpinned by Harris and Fallot’s well established (2001) trauma-informed principles of empowerment, collaboration, trustworthiness, choice and safety.
Based on my findings, alongside national data and literature, I argue that trauma-informed family support offers a potential blueprint to effectively support and reduce school exclusions and youth justice involvement for neurodiverse children and their families.
*All identifying features of the local authority area, and the project have been anonymized to ensure confidentiality for participants.
