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.

View full abstract

This article examines the transformation of citizenship education in England, focusing on the decade under the Conservative-led government. Following Labour's defeat in the 2010 general election, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government was formed, and the sole Conservative government took over the office in 2015. During that time, issues such as Brexit, the refugee crisis, and terrorism have been the subject of hated debate over diversity and integration in the UK. This article delineates how Citizenship Education has been changed amid these social conditions. It scrutinises its transformation from the Labour government, considering the policy context and conception of ‘good citizenship’. First, it briefly illustrates the characteristics of citizenship education under the Labour government. Next, it summarises the analytical framework and presents the objects of analysis. Then, based on the policy context that may have influenced citizenship education under the Conservative government, the following educational policies related to citizenship education, in addition to the National Curriculum, are discussed: character education and Fundamental British Values. It also examines what educational practices have been attempted in comparison with these official policies. Finally, through a discussion on the conception, transformation, and practice of Citizenship Education, the prospects for citizenship education based on different political ideologies will be examined and suggestions for practice in Japan will be drawn. In citizenship education under the Conservative government, the concept of active citizenship with a social justice orientation and the development of political citizenship, which was aimed around the Click Report, have receded into the background. Instead, volunteerism and individualism have been pushed to the foreground. Conversely, although Citizenship Education was found to have undergone policy changes and many controversies, it has been flexibly practiced by teachers to a great extent. This is due to the situation in the UK, where the National Curriculum descriptions outside the core subjects are brief and there are no authorized textbooks. While this allows for the flexible implementation of citizenship education, it also means that the content and approach of Citizenship Education widely differ by school and teacher. Conversely, the large-scale survey revealed that Citizenship Education has been effective in promoting broad political and civic participation. In England, where research evidence informs education policy, one of the reasons why citizenship education has continued to be addressed after the change of government is that these positive findings have been demonstrated. Under the Conservative government, Citizenship Education has shifted towards neoliberalism and nationalism. However, the inclusive practices of Citizenship Education have in fact continued due to the efforts of teachers who interpret citizenship in justice and equity.

View full abstract