Tim Clark on the Government’s New School Suspensions and Exclusions Policy: ‘lazy, unimaginative and dangerous’

Tim Clark

[Terminology: in current parlance, a “suspension” is for a fixed term; “exclusion” is permanent exclusion, ie expulsion.]

Last week, several media outlets ran reports of the government’s desire to stop schools from sending pupils home for poor behaviour, other than for violence [last year, almost 19,000 suspensions/exclusions were for physical violence again teachers; 43,000 for verbal abuse]. Instead, schools will be required to manage the most disruptive pupils on site. The policy is open for consultation and due to come into effect in 2027. The rationale is that when pupils are sent home, they miss teaching and learning and may just spend the day roaming the streets or playing on social media (although legally, parents/careers are supposed to be responsible for suspended/excluded children and to ensure that they are not on the streets during school hours).

I cannot deny that I find the suggestion extremely worrying and should argue that it is a lazy, unimaginative and ultimately dangerous policy.

Three general points immediately spring to mind. First, asking how we can reduce the number of suspensions/exclusions (which have risen exponentially post-COVID) is asking the wrong question. We can reduce the number of suspensions by simply banning them, but the real question is, how can we improve pupil behaviour? Recent evidence has shown that behaviour is poor in 20% of schools and very poor in 7%, compared to only 4% and 1% respectively before COVID. This is the real problem. Suspensions/exclusions have risen simply because behaviour has declined; the focus should be on the latter, not the former: on the cause rather than the consequence.

There are some who rail against suspension/exclusion citing the alleged correlation between pupils being sent home from school and them ultimately ending up in the criminal justice system. Let’s be clear, there is absolutely no correlation between suspension/exclusion and criminality: the correlation is between the young person’s poor behaviour at school and his/her continued poor behaviour out of school. The correlation is the behaviour. The only role exclusion/suspension may have played in the process is not to have rectified the poor behaviour but we should remember that suspension/exclusion does work in the majority of cases: the vast majority of pupils suspended/excluded do not go on to commit further offences.

The second crucial point often missed is that although tens of thousands of pupils are suspended/excluded each year, nine million pupils are not. Of course, it is worrying that an increasing number of youngsters are being excluded from education, but the focus must be on the vast majority who are pleasant, polite, cooperative and who want to learn. As a Head, my mantra was simple: “no one has the right to disrupt the learning of others”, regardless of background or SEND. Every child, regardless of how badly behaved, has the right to a good and effective education, but not at the expense of others. If that means removing one child from a class or from a school to enable the other 29 in the class to learn and to let the teacher teach, then so be it. For me, the prime role of a Head is to empower, “teachers to teach and pupils to learn”.

I mentioned that the policy was “lazy”. One reason for this is that the proposal misses the point that the majority of suspensions/exclusions [more than half] are for “persistent disruption”. The clue is in the adjective: if it is persistent, it means that schools have exhausted their options and have, therefore, resorted to sending the child home. By forcing schools to keep hold of very badly behaved pupils, it is forcing them to carry on using measures that have already failed. Unless, of course, the government is suggesting a new range of sanctions and options open to schools? So far, nothing new has been suggested, hence my use of the term “unimaginative”.

We must recognise that the range of options open to schools when disciplining pupils is very limited: detentions, isolation, extra work or chores around the school such as litter picking and calling in parents. There are also the more supportive approaches such as mentoring, counselling and one-to-one work. In most cases these strategies work and the majority children are positive about school, or at least compliant. When these strategies fail, however, schools must have the right to adopt more serious sanctions. I also think there is a very important psychological benefit of a suspension: because the child is sent home, it is making a very clear statement – schools should be happy, purposeful, vibrant and disciplined environments and if a minority of pupils cannot cope with that, then they are removed from it.

I should also add that no school can, or should, be run on sanctions alone. Schools work best when pupils are actively engaged and want to be there. Engaging teaching, genuine pastoral care so that pupils know they are safe and supported and a wide range of extra-curricular activities such as sport, music and drama, all help to engage and motivate youngsters and help to create an environment to which most want to belong. Those who seek to damage that atmosphere through violence, rudeness or by preventing others from enjoying school, must be prevented from doing so.

One very real argument against sending children home is that for a frighteningly growing number of children, home may be the precise cause of the problem. It is often forgotten that the typical child only spends 17.5% of a typical year in school: 82.5% of the year is spent beyond the school gates. Crucial though the role is played by schools, if we really want to change attitudes and behaviours, we must also consider the massive issue of parenting. Noticeably, this does not appear to be on the government’s agenda.

If the government is serious about removing the power of Heads to send children home, then, unless it wishes to see a complete collapse of school discipline, it must find the money and resources to support schools. If the alternative to off-site suspension is “internal suspension”, then a specialist room with specialist staff must be provided in every school or group of schools. Is there money for this? For those schools which do not currently have an isolation room, will these be provided? Will every school be provided with additional staff (despite the current recruitment and retention crisis and falling real-terms budgets) to offer behaviour mentoring, counselling and one to one or small group support? Will we see a significant increase in the number of Pupil Referral Units [all of which are currently either at or over capacity] and other specialist off-site provision?

It is essential that we seriously and urgently tackle the increasing decline in poor pupil behaviour. To be genuinely successful, it will require funding and resources; policy creation must also heavily involve teachers and Heads – not pen pushers in Whitehall who have absolutely no experience or understanding of how to run a school. Sadly, however, my gut feeling is that one of two things will happen: either the government will realise that a genuinely workable alternative to suspension/exclusion is incredibly expensive and so will eventually drop the idea, with no change or improvement in pupil behaviour. Alternatively, it will stick to its guns and enforce the policy but without providing any of the essential additional support, funding or resources. If the latter proves to be the case, all pupils (whatever their behaviour and attitude – good, bad or indifferent), teachers and standards will suffer catastrophically. I just hope that I am wrong – for the whole country’s sake.