½¿É«µ¼º½

Children’s right to an education is explicitly stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (). In England, the special educational needs (SEND) sets out the legal framework for supporting children and young people with SEND, which includes those in youth custody settings. Evidence suggests that there is a disproportionate number of neurodivergent children in custody (Day, 2022). In addition, there is burgeoning research which highlights that children in custody are more likely to have disrupted educational histories, experiences of school exclusion, poor literacy and numeracy skills, and SEND (see Andow, 2020). Although it is true that not all neurodivergent children will have SEND, evidence suggests that children with SEND are seven times more likely to be excluded from mainstream schools, which increases the likelihood of entering the youth justice system (Gill et al., 2017). In fact, the school-to-prison pipeline is well documented (see for example Berridge et al., 2001) and, arguably, is a social justice concern.

‘Education plays a fundamentally crucial role in rehabilitating children and young people in youth justice settings globally.’

We maintain that education plays a fundamentally crucial role in rehabilitating children and young people in youth justice settings globally. We argue that the loss of liberty serves as a sufficient form of punishment for criminal offending and therefore, in our view, youth justice institutions should focus on rehabilitating young people so that they can lead productive and fulfilling lives once they are released back into the community. If there is a lack of attention to rehabilitation, there is a danger that young people will commit further offences post-release and find themselves back in prison. The ‘revolving door’ in and out of prison is too common and if there is a lack of attention to education then, as Ross Little articulates, nothing really changes for them (Little, 2020).

A decade of decline

A recent report by Ofsted and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons painted a damming picture of a ‘decade of declining quality of education in young offender institutions’ (Ofsted & HMIP, 2024). The report highlights ‘steadily declining educational opportunities’ because of several factors. These include: the limited time given to education; lack of curriculum breadth and ambition; weaknesses in assessment; lack of behaviour support; poor attendance; the variable quality of the teaching of reading; lack of investment in and access to technology; and lack of access to educational and training placements in the community.

We do, of course, recognise that education in custodial settings is associated with multiple challenges. Research shows that a sizeable proportion of young people in custody may have serious diagnosed, or undiagnosed mental health needs, often associated with histories of childhood trauma (Paterson-Young et al., 2021). Many will have unmet physiological, or psychological needs, due to adverse childhood experiences. However, in agreement with the Taylor Review, we think that education provides the building blocks to a life free of crime (Taylor, 2016).

Case and Hazel have proposed a model which focuses on the principle of ‘child first, offender second’ which emphasises the importance of child voice, child-focused adults, children’s rights, positive relationships between adults and children and an emphasis on supporting the development of a pro-social identity so that children and young people have an opportunity to make better choices and become their best selves (Case & Hazel, 2020). The model is refreshing and is a substantial improvement on the current model, which views child offenders through a deficit lens and, arguably, situates them within a risk paradigm.

The systematic review

This blog post summarises the findings from our which focuses on the education of children and young people with SEND in youth custody settings see (Thomas & Glazzard, 2025). Eighteen papers, mainly from England and Wales, but not exclusively, were critically analysed to identify key findings, which we then used to develop a framework to support the education of this group of learners. The results indicate that both the education and youth justice systems globally are disabling, and criminalise children through processes that, often unintentionally, label, stigmatise, isolate, neglect and harm children with SEND.

The framework that is presented in our review highlights the need for a review of education in young offenders’ institutions (YOIs), to re-engage and reconnect young people who are serving custodial sentences to the curriculum. It identifies quality indicators for leadership teams, assessment, planning, education and training in youth custody settings. Figure 1 presents one element of the framework which focuses on fostering a positive learning culture that recognises the diverse learning needs of children, which in turn will help to develop the child first model that is so vitally important.

Figure 1: A model of inclusion for children with SEND in custody

Our systematic review has highlighted clear failings within custodial settings in relation to leadership, teaching and assessment of SEND. We have used existing global research and data to develop two frameworks. The first is an international screening framework for initial SEND screening assessment of all children held in custodial settings. The second is an international SEND inclusion framework that we believe will allow countries to apply minimum international standards to the benefit of children, and educators globally.

References

Andow, C. (2020). The institutional shaping of children’s educational experiences in secure custody: A case study of a secure children’s home in England. International Journal of Educational Development, 77, Article 102217.

Berridge, D., Brodie, I., Pitts, J., Porteous, D., & Tarling, R. (2001). The independent effects of permanent exclusion from school on the offending careers of young people. Development and Statistics Directorate.

Case, S., & Hazel, N. (2020). Child first, offender second: A progressive model for education in custody. International Journal of Educational Development, 77, Article 102244.

Day, A.-M. (2022). Disabling and criminalising systems? Understanding the experiences and challenges facing incarcerated, neurodivergent children in the education and youth justice systems in England. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 3, Article 100102.

Gill, K., Quilter-Pinner, H., & Swift, D. (2017). Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. Institute of Public Policy Research.

Little, R. (2020). Paying the price: Consequences for children’s education in prison in a market society. International Journal of Educational Development, 77, Article 102212.

Office for Standards in Education & His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons [Ofsted & HMIP]. (2024). A decade of declining quality of education in young offender institutions: The systemic shortcomings that fail children. ÌýÌý

Paterson-Young, C., Bajwa-Patel, M., & Hazenberg, R. (2021). ‘I ain’t stupid, I just don’t like school’: A ‘needs’ based argument for children’s educational provision in custody. Journal of Youth Studies, 25(4), 452–469.

Taylor, C. (2016). Review of the youth justice system in England and Wales (pp. 36–42). Ministry of Justice.

Thomas, S., & Glazzard, J. (2025). Special educational needs and disabilities of children in custody: A systematic review of international research. Review of Education, 13(2), Article e70081.