Knife crime and school exclusions: are they really connected?

“Moral panics are rarely without some foundation, and the recent public anxiety over knife crime is fuelled by statistical evidence as well as the harrowing stories of young lives cut short by knife attacks.  In 2018-19, almost 850 people aged 18 and under required hospital treatment as a result of attack by knives or other sharp objects, compared with around 450 as recently as 2014-15 (Allen et al. 2019).  The rise in the number of injuries is paralleled by increases in recorded crimes.  This year, knife crime in general was at its highest recorded level for nine years, including over 4,000 court disposals for possession by juveniles aged 10-17.

The causes of knife crime amongst young people are complex, with large regional variations and fluctuations over time.  However, a possible link with exclusions from school has been suspected for some time, and the publication in October 2019 of a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime: Back to School? Breaking the link between school exclusions and knife crime has thrown this link into sharp relief.  The report focuses particularly on the inadequacies of alternative provision for young people excluded from school, with many excluded children left unsupported – not necessarily roaming the streets, but with excessive time on their hands and a lack of alternative role models which leaves them easy prey to recruitment by gangs.  However, whilst the report makes many important points and has made the best of the evidence available to the All-Party Group, it is rather weak on evidence for a causal link between exclusions and knife crime.  As the report itself comments, it is at least possible that young people with vulnerabilities placing them at greater risk of being involved in knife crime are also more likely to be excluded.  To make more sense of some of these possibilities, it is necessary to explore the data in more depth.

It is certainly the case that both school exclusions and young people’s involvement in knife crime have increased dramatically in recent years.  However, knife crime is predominantly an adult offence, with around 80 per cent of recorded crimes and hospital admissions involving people over the age of 18.  School exclusions are also age-related, with very low rates of exclusion in primary schools.  Around 1.4 percent of pupils in primary schools were excluded in 2017-18, almost all of these being fixed-period exclusions.  This compares with 10.3 percent of pupils in secondary schools, the great majority being excluded for fixed periods (DfE 2019).  The reasons for exclusion are diverse, but in 2017-18 around one-quarter of both permanent and fixed-period exclusions were for violence against an adult or another pupil.  The largest single reason for exclusion was persistent disruptive behaviour, with relatively small proportions arising from bullying, damage or drug-related activities.  Exclusion rates for boys are around two and a half times the corresponding rates for girls, and pupils living in deprived areas, eligible for free school meals, or with statements of special educational need, are all more likely to be excluded than other pupils (DfE 2019).

Exclusion figures, like those for knife crime, fluctuate significantly over time, partly because of real changes in underlying rates but also because of demographic changes.  If there are more young people, it is likely that there will be more exclusions and more incidents of knife crime.  Figure 1 allows for this, and the large disparity between permanent and fixed-term exclusions, by referring rates of exclusion and numbers of hospital cases to their values in 2003-4; the figure then compares the development of these factors over time.

The correspondence between these trends is indeed striking, particularly in terms of knife crime and fixed-period exclusions (the correspondence is less clear if hospital treatments are disaggregated into under-16s and 16-18 year olds).  It is also clear from the figure that recent increases must be seen in the context of significant periods of decline, with low points occurring around 2014-15.  However, it is well-known that correlation does not imply a causal relationship, and it is certainly possible that both knife crime and school exclusions are both driven by one or more unobserved variables.  Although the All-Party Group report provides plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that excluded pupils may be drawn into knife crime, it remains to be seen whether exclusion in itself is a significant factor in producing an increased risk of involvement in such activity.  It is likely that the true situation is more complex, with a range of factors at different levels of analysis interacting to produce the observed trends.

An obvious explanatory factor in the association between school exclusion and knife crime is poverty and deprivation, as suggested by the demographics of exclusion discussed above.  More specifically, we might also focus on the austerity policies of Conservative-led governments since 2010: cuts to education budgets, youth services and police numbers are certainly possible drivers of parallel increases in exclusions and knife crime.  Neoliberal policies more generally may also be held to account, such as market reforms to education, which many people regard as a factor in school exclusions.  Although such policies predate recent Conservative governments, their effects were partly held in check by spending on public services, which of course were an early casualty of austerity measures.  However, although such macro-level explanations must be considered, more proximate factors in knife crime are also important.  This is why many of the points made in the All-Party Group report deserve serious consideration.

Perhaps the most important contribution of Back to School? is its emphasis on improving provision for children excluded from school.  Although recent media reports have raised the profile of what some commentators see as a scandal of unregulated alternative providers, this kind of provision has been under academic scrutiny for a considerable period – see, for example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report by my colleague Lisa Russell, which was one of the first to map the terrain of alternative provision in England.  Although some of this provision is excellent, the task of reintegrating excluded pupils into mainstream schooling is a massive one, and as the All-Party Group suggests, there is a need for better training and support for alternative provision tutors, improved co-ordination with schools and other agencies, and more generous funding.  These measures would benefit all pupils in alternative provision, not just those most at risk of becoming involved with gangs and knife crime.  Children who have been excluded from school tend to achieve lower (or no) GCSEs and are more likely to become NEET (not in education, employment or training).  Longitudinal research on NEET young people conducted in this University (see Simmons, Thompson and Russell 2014 and Thompson 2017) shows how – for some young people – negative experiences of education, frequent school exclusion and non-attendance, and weaknesses in alternative provision can spiral into a young adulthood of unemployment and isolation.  Although less visible than knife crime, these circumstances can also be damaging to young lives.  The right kind of attention to reducing exclusions and improving alternative provision – based on high-quality education rather than simply ‘warehousing’ vulnerable children – would be a welcome development.  A society which only remembers its forgotten children when they become involved in serious crime is in danger of losing its moral compass.”

 

References

Allen, G., Audickas, L., Loft, P. & Bells, A. (2019) Knife crime in England and Wales. House of Commons Briefing Paper SN4304. London: House of Commons Library.

DfE (2015) Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England: 2012 to 2013. Statistical First Release SFR 28/2014. London: Department for Education.

DfE (2019) Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England: 2017 to 2018. London: Department for Education.

Simmons, R., Thompson, R. & Russell, L. (2014) Education, Work and Social Change: Young people and marginalization in post-industrial Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith, N. (2019) Back to School? Breaking the link between school exclusions and knife crime. Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime. London: APPG on Knife Crime.

Thompson, R. (2017) Opportunity structures and educational marginality: the post-16 transitions of young people outside education and employment. Oxford Review of Education, 43(6), 749-766.