Examination of the enactment process of the provision of PRUs under the Education Act 1993

Focus on inclusion for pupils with special educational needs

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the significance of the provision of PRUs under the Education Act 1993 in terms of the educational reform toward inclusion in England. The paper examined parliamentary materials such as minutes or written answers that were related to exclusion. The term “exclusion” was first regulated by the Education（No.2）Act 1986. The law set up three categories of exclusions: “fixed-term”, “indefinite” and “permanent”. The Education Act 1993 abolished the category of indefinite exclusions and provided for the establishment of pupil referral unit（PRU）for those children out of school. The Act also attempted to promote the provision for pupils with special educational needs. The evidence that they are more likely to be excluded has been pointed out recently. In England, some researches in the 1990s reported the increase of exclusions. Conversely, the Government had never collected the details of pupils excluded from school. The National Exclu- sions Reporting System（NERS）in 1990-1992 revealed the tendency of exclusions, although the relationship between special educational needs and exclusions was clarified to a limited extent. These evidences made the Government regard exclusions as a matter of urgency to be tackled. At the same time, the new Education Bill was under the debate. An amendment which con- cerned exclusions needed to be suggested to the Bill. Amendment No. 301A, which defined the legal status of PRUs, was discussed in the House of Lords on 4th May 1993. Minister of State emphasised the importance of ensuring that children out of school could receive suitable education. She claimed PRUs would function so and reinte- grate children into the mainstream. The main arguments provided by the Members were as following. Firstly, the amendment did not address the root causes of exclusion. Secondly, the amendment encompassed pupils out of schools by a variety of reasons, including illness or ex- clusion. Thirdly, under the amendment, sick pupils might be more deprioritised than they had been because of excluded pupils being the main concern of LEAs. The study pointed out that the establishment of PRUs under the Education Act 1993 in- troduced the concept of reintegration. Conventional Japanese studies on inclusion in England focused on mainstream-special relationship. However, the findings of the paper cast a sceptical view on this discourse. Inclusive education in England was comprised of alternative institutions like PRUs as well as special and mainstream ones. Mainstream-alternative relationship was not the binary opposition. PRUs were not a long-term alternative to mainstream schooling but a factor of reintegration, which would get pupils out of school back into mainstream. In England, prior to the discussion of how to reduce exclusions, how to achieve reintegration of pupils out of school was discussed, as illustrated by legislative intent of the provision of PRUs under the Education Act 1993. Limitations of the study are discussed.