Chapter 1
Exclusion facts and figures
Iām not a fan of using data as the sole basis to make important decisions that affect childrenās lives, as it is too open to manipulation by decision-makers to suit their own ends. Figures can be massaged to fit just about any situation, often dependent on subjective opinion rather than dispassionate fact. Yet because we place collective trust in what data can tell us and use it to inform policy, it does have an impact on practice and, ultimately, peopleās lives. As Mike Schmoker says, āThings get done only if the data we gather can inform and inspire those in a position to make a difference.ā1 So, whilst we must beware the limits of data as a measure of individual lived experience, we must also be aware of the ways in which it shapes decision-making, policy and, thus, childrenās lives.
What is the data on exclusions telling us?
Whilst this book is written from an unapologetically personal viewpoint, it is of course important to consider a certain amount of data in order to see the wider picture. In July 2017, the Department for Education published the previous yearās annual figures for permanent and fixed-term exclusions in England. It came as no surprise to me that this revealed a steady upward trend. Rates of permanent exclusion across all state-funded primary, secondary and special schools rose from 0.07% in 2014ā2015 to 0.08% in 2015ā2016, whilst fixed-term exclusions rose from 3.88% to 4.29% in the same period.2 The 2018 release reveals a rise to 0.10 and 4.76% respectively.3 The jump in fixed-term exclusions is particularly concerning as this can be a signal that a school perceives its other options for managing behaviour have run out. Indeed, as the 2018 report says:
Persistent disruptive behaviour remained the most common reason for permanent exclusions in state-funded primary, secondary and special schools ā accounting for 2,755 (35.7 per cent) of all permanent exclusions in 2016/17.4
Commenting on trends in the data, the report notes:
The groups that we usually expect to have higher rates are the ones that have increased exclusions since last year e.g. boys, pupils with special educational needs, pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals and national curriculum years 9 and 10.5
There is something rather telling in the language of expectation here. The characteristics associated with higher rates of exclusion, quoted verbatim from the report, are as follows:
Over half of all permanent (57.2 per cent) and fixed period (52.6 per cent) exclusions occur in national curriculum year 9 or above.
A quarter (25.0 per cent) of all permanent exclusions were for pupils aged 14, and pupils of this age group also had the highest rate of fixed period exclusion, and the highest rate of pupils receiving one or more fixed period exclusion.
The permanent exclusion rate for boys (0.15 per cent) was over three times higher than that for girls (0.04 per cent) and the fixed period exclusion rate was almost three times higher (6.91 compared with 2.53 per cent).
Pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals (FSM) had a permanent exclusion rate of 0.28 per cent and fixed period exclusion rate of 12.54 per cent ā around four times higher than those who are not eligible (0.07 and 3.50 per cent respectively).
Pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals (FSM) accounted for 40.0 per cent of all permanent exclusions and 36.7 per cent of all fixed period exclusions.
Pupils with identified special educational needs (SEN) accounted for around half of all permanent exclusions (46.7 per cent) and fixed period exclusions (44.9 per cent).
Pupils with SEN support had the highest permanent exclusion rate at 0.35 per cent. This was six times higher than the rate for pupils with no SEN (0.06 per cent).
Pupils with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan or with a statement of SEN had the highest fixed period exclusion rate at 15.93 per cent ā over five times higher than pupils with no SEN (3.06 per cent).
Pupils of Gypsy/Roma and Traveller of Irish Heritage ethnic groups had the highest rates of both permanent and fixed period exclusions, but as the population is relatively small these figures should be treated with some caution.
Black Caribbean pupils had a permanent exclusion rate nearly three times higher (0.28 per cent) than the school population as a whole (0.10 per cent). Pupils of Asian ethnic groups had the lowest rates of permanent and fixed period exclusion.
6 What does experience tell us?
Various conclusions could be drawn about why these groups are particularly vulnerable to exclusion, but I want to confine myself to a few pertinent observations from my own experience.
Primary-aged pupils
Recently, I have been seeing more and more exclusions of primary-aged pupils, and I fear that the balance will tip away from the concentration we currently see at Year 9 and above. Of course, all exclusions are hugely concerning, but exclusion at such a young age means that children are outside of mainstream education before their school lives have even really begun. I am especially concerned about the number of young children who are being permanently excluded, including multiple children from the same school. This is not to say that these schools are in the wrong ā they are often desperate for help in dealing with disruptive, often violent, behaviour and are extremely concerned about the childās safety and the safety of other children and adults, as well as the disruption to learning and climate of anxiety that this can cause.
Boys
The statistics show that boys are more likely to be excluded than girls and, indeed, this was borne out at my PRU. We did, however, have girls who were excluded for extreme emotional reactions or physical assaults on other children and staff. They often needed intense one-to-one support and a referral either to child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) or the child psychology service, at which point it was finally recognised that many had ASC, sometimes including pathological demand avoidance (PDA). ASC is often more easily recognised in boys, as girls can be more adept at seeming to cope in social situations. Both boys and girls frequently displayed high anxiety, which manifested itself in their poor behaviour and was linked to home circumstances, social and communication difficulties, sensory issues and underlying medical needs, such as ASC and ADHD.
Children claiming free school meals
I have seen how socio-economic factors put children claiming free school meals (FSM) at more risk of exclusion, including difficulties in families accessing the right support at an early stage and/or an unwillingness to engage with childrenās social care, even when intervention is warranted. There is a dearth of expertise in some counties with regard to CAMHS and childrenās social care involvement, and this needs addressing if we are to seek a more cohesive approach from all agencies.
Perhaps the targeted use of pupil premium money needs to be rethought, if some groups are still very vulnerable and at a greater risk of exclusion than others. We also need to look at how funds are allocated to local education authorities (LEAs) with large numbers of exclusions and whether enough mon...
