Schooling and Crime: Exploring the Links by 50A1Mpa2


									Schooling and Crime:
   Exploring the Links

    Troubles of Youth
 Monday, 01 October 2012
                  Lecture Outline
• Theories of Education
• ‘Disengagement’ and Policy Responses
   – Attainment
   – Disruption
   – Exclusions
• Links to Criminality
• School as Site of Crime/ Crime Prevention in Schools
   – Safer Schools Partnerships
   – Crime Reduction in Secondary Schools
• Education and Desistance
• Interventions
   – Mentoring
   – Avoiding Exclusion
    Interpretations of Education
• Education is traditionally cited in positive,
  functional terms
   – Schooling provides skills, morality, social regulation,
     social ranking
• More critical commentaries
   – Education acts to maintain and reproduce social inequalities
   – Working class children, Black and female pupils have roles and
     expectations matched to realistically low achievements
   – For middle class children, education operates to reproduce
     culturally dominant modes of behaviour and achievement
   – Education perpetuates the myth of meritocracy
    How important is schooling?
• Little independent effect of schooling?
    – Schools simply reflect the macro-, or meso- level effects of wider social
    – Schools don’t affect individual success / failure, but represent an arena
      this is played out
    – Bernstein (1970) “Schools cannot compensate for society”
• Considerable effect?
    – Schools provide the critical mix for crime opportunity
        •   “at-risk of victimisation” members of society
        •   high value, sellable property
        •   motivated offenders
        •   (possibly) low-levels of effective supervision
    – Vital role in the labelling of young people
    – Coleman / Jencks (1972)
        • more of an independent effect noted, esp. for low ability pupils from lower
          social class, or ethnic minorities
    Disaffection and “Trouble” in
• Tension between individual needs and that
  of the group is apparent throughout the
  education system
• Sources of ‘trouble’ for children in school
  – failure to do their work
  – behaviour towards others
  – Attendance
     • Non-condoned absence
     • Condoned absence
Source: Hayden, C et al (2007) Schools, pupil behaviour and
young offenders; BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. Vol 47 pp 293–310
                 Steer Report (2005)
    The Practitioners’ Group on School Behaviour and Discipline

   “It is often the case that for pupils, school is a calm place in a
       disorderly world. We realise that this is not the case in every
       school, but in our experience, where unsatisfactory behaviour
       does occur, in the vast majority of cases it involves low-level
       disruption in lessons. Incidents of serious misbehaviour, and
       especially acts of extreme violence, remain exceptionally rare
       and are carried out by a very small proportion of pupils”
• some new forms problematic behaviour around new
• “in loco parentis”?: “a trend for parents to challenge
  schools at law…. has continued and intensified”
    Links between Schooling and
• Strong correlational links between school’s
  demographic characteristics and delinquency
  – Farrington and West (1973) suggest this is not a
    school ‘effect’, but reflects differences in intake
  – Rutter (1979) “15000 Hours” – sig. ‘school effects’ in
    attainment, attendance and behaviour in school:
    delinquency relatively unaffected by school
• Differences may explain research approach
  Delinquent / Delinquescent Sub-
• Mediating factor of group effects:
  – Numerous studies (Hargreaves (1967);
    Chambliss (1973); Willis (1977);
    Schwedingers (1985)) have identified
    oppositional sub-cultures that relate
    educational disengagement with delinquency
  – Over-deterministic?
  – Some evidence that delinquent sub-cultures
    are affected by ‘streaming’, and by school
    processes of marginalization
Disruptive Behaviour -> Delinquency?
• Objective measurement of “disruptive
• Criminalisation?
  – School problems acting as a ‘net-widener’
  – Suspended / disruptive pupils deemed more
    problematic if they enter the CJS
  – School reports carry weight with magistrates
      Level of Truancy          • Not a straightforward
                                  proxy for disaffection
   Year 10 and 11(%age)
                                • Often carried out to avoid
 Every Day           1.5          certain lessons, not a
                                  particular dislike for
 2-4 times a week    3.2          school
 Once a week         3.5        • Poor neighbourhood and
 2-3 times a month 5.4            low-skilled family
                                  increases risk (Galloway
 Once a month        4.7          1985)
 Less Often          12.2       • Absenteeism records a
                                  strong predictor of
 Never               69.5         exclusion
O’Keefe (1994) using YCS data
      Truancy and Criminality
• Causal links difficult to establish
  – Some find evidence of truancy coinciding with
    offending at that stage in life
  – Little evidence of offending whilst actually
  – Once apprehended, truancy appears to be a
    significant factor in decisions made by police
    and the courts
Crime Reduction in Secondary Schools

• Key Factors in Enhancing Life Chances
  and preventing offending
  – Good quality staff / pupil relationships
  – Importance of recognising parental / carer’s
  – Commitment to implementation across the
    whole school
  – Integration of measures into wider practices
                                Exclusions and Offending
                                  Comparison of indexed juvenile custodial population and permanent exclusions for 1990 - 2005



Index (100=mean)



                   60                                                                       Juvenile Custodial Population
                                                                                            Permanent exclusions
                   40                                                                       No. of Young People found guilty

                         1990   1991   1992   1993   1994   1995    1996   1997   1998    1999   2000   2001    2002   2003      2004   2005

                     Evidence of a close link between exclusions and juvenile custodial
 The independent effects of permanent exclusion
  from school on the offending careers of young
             David Berridge et al (2001)

• Aim: to establish whether permanent
  exclusion from school had an independent
  effect on offending career
• Research Problems:
  – official data; retrospective; informal practices;
    theoretical problem
        No recorded offences at all             85 (32.3%)               A “solution”
                                                                    - Older boys
        Only recorded offences after            117 (44.4%)
        Offences before and after exclusion     47 (17.9%)

        Only offences before exclusion          14 (5.3%)

        Total number of excluded pupils         263 cases
                              Offending after exclusion
Total                                                                   168
Offending intensified at time of exclusion                               13
a complex chain of events loosening affiliation and commitment to a conventional
way of life: loss of time structures; a re-casting of identity; a changed relationship
with parents and siblings; the erosion of contact with pro-social peers and adults;
closer association with similarly situated young people and heightened vulnerability
to police surveillance.
                  Findings (2)

• Substantial majority of excluded pupils were involved in
• Substantial majority of young people involved in crime
  had been excluded from school
• Other non-school risk (personality and socio-
  demographic) risk-factors also present
• Transition to secondary school problematic for many
• Black African-Caribbean students: greater teacher
• Permanent exclusions usually the end of a lengthy
  process of warnings and fixed-term exclusions: little
  planning for post-exclusion care, though
What Works? Educational Interventions

• Education:
  – metrics-rich: enabling a strong evidence
    oriented culture: however,
  – “Treatment” much more difficult to measure
    than outcomes
  – Need to consider varying “inputs” – social
    background etc.
  – Claims to effects beyond education probably
    the result of complex intermediary stages
Educational Interventions: examples

• Increased Parental Involvement in
  – (Spontaneous) large effects on educational
  – (Planned) little evidence
• Pre-school education
  – Promising, incl. extra-educational metrics
• School Improvement Teams
      Addressing Disaffection
• Learning Support Units / Pupil Referral
  – Net-widening / variation in practice / formation
    of delinquent peer groups
• Mentoring e.g. Mentoring-Plus
  – Central role of the relationship between
    mentor and young person
  – Positive impact most marked in relation to
    education / work – no evidence of effect on
    offending, family relationships, substance use
    and self-esteem
Responses to Disruptive Behaviour
Level 1: Whole school strategies
Policies and strategies:
      Behaviour; bullying; Equal Opps; SEN provision, teaching and learning strategies
       Home-school agreements
Individual pupils
      Educational targets; behavioural expectations: Individual Behaviour Plans, Pastoral
        Support Plans: Personal Education Plans
The curriculum
      PSHE; citizenship education; teaching and learning strategies
Levels 2: In-school and more intensive support (patchy provision)
Withdrawal rooms or Leaning Support Units; group and individual work;
   learning mentors
Level 3: Combination and reintegration programmes and plans (patchy
Part-time at school: part-time at an FE college, sometimes with a view to
   reintegration; “Include” programmes
Level 4: Out of School provision
Pupil Referral Units, home tuition, residential placements
Source: Hayden, C. (2005) Children in Trouble, Palgrave
   Education and Delinquency
• Safer Schools Partnerships
  – Evidence of some improvement in attainment and
  – Institutional reluctance to adopt
• Custodial Education
  – Effectiveness difficult to establish
     • Self-selection bias; cross programme contamination; lack of
       effective follow-ups
  – Remains overwhelming evidence of the poor
    educational experiences of those in youth custody,
    and of the inadequacy of educational provision once
    in custody

To top