Understanding the Causes and Consequences of School Exclusions: Teachers, Parents and Schools' Perspectives 9781032193014, 9781032205243, 9781003264019

Citation preview

UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

This book outlines a study of the causes and consequences of school exclusions. It explores the experiences of schools, teachers, parents, and governors and includes a focus on the experience of Black and minority ethnic students and those with special educational needs and disabilities. The book presents the results of detailed empirical research from English schools that studied teachers, school leaders, parents, governors, educational psychologists, and school staff experience with school exclusions. The book examines the scale of the problem and underlying factors, the disproportionality of exclusions for SEND and minority ethnic students, comparative international literature on exclusions, and implications for policy, practice, and research. Providing a comprehensive overview of the factors affecting school exclusions, the book will be of great interest to researchers, academics, and students in the areas of education policy, inclusion, race and ethnicity, social justice and equality, and special education needs in education. It will also be of interest to policy makers and education professionals including special educational needs co-ordinators, headteachers, and senior school leaders. Feyisa Demie is Honorary Professor at Durham University School of Education and Head of Research and Adviser for School self-evaluation, Lambeth, UK. Prior to this, he was a university lecturer and is Fellow of the Academy of Social Science (FAcSS) and the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA). He has worked extensively for over 28 years with local authorities, government departments, and schools on the use of research and data to drive school improvement. He runs school-focused training programmes and conducts conferences on the use of what work research and assessment data to support school self-evaluation for headteachers, teachers, governors, and policymakers.

UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS Teachers, Parents and Schools’ Perspectives

Feyisa Demie

Cover image: © Getty Images First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Feyisa Demie The right of Feyisa Demie to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-032-19301-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-20524-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-26401-9 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019 Typeset in Bembo by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)

For Margaret, Ibsa and Kulani with love

CONTENTS

List of illustrations x Acknowledgements xi Glossary – A guide to acronyms xii Note on terminology xiv PART I

Introduction: School exclusions contexts and policy concerns

1

1 Introduction: The scale of exclusions problems and policy concerns 3 Why the interest in school exclusions? 3 The aims of the book and a note on research 7 The structure of the book 9 Note 12 References 13 2 Factors associated with rise in school exclusions 16 Introduction 16 Reasons for school exclusions 16 Factors associated with rising school exclusions 17 Conclusions 27 References 29

viii  Contents

PART II

The experience of teachers, school staff and parents with school exclusions

31

3 Teachers’, school staffs’, and governors’ experience with school exclusions 33 Teachers and school leaders’ experience with school exclusions 33 Special educational needs coordinators’ experience with school exclusions 45 School governors’ experience with exclusions 49 Conclusions 55 References 57 4 The views and experience of parents with school exclusions 59 Introduction 59 Key findings 61 Conclusions 69 References 70 PART III

Ethnic and special educational needs disproportionality in school exclusions

73

5 Ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions 75 Introduction 75 The scale of the problem 76 Reasons for ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions 78 Some approaches to tackle ethnic disproportionality 88 Conclusions 90 References 90 6 Special educational needs disproportionality in school exclusions 93 Introduction 93 Factors associated with SEN disproportionality in school exclusions 96 Conclusions 107 References 109

Contents  ix

7 International experience of school exclusions: Ethnic and special educational needs disproportionality 111 Introduction 111 Experience in ethnic disproportionality 111 Experience in SEN disproportionality 117 Conclusions 118 References 119 PART IV

What are the lessons for those concerned with school exclusions? 125 8 Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications 127 Lessons for tackling school exclusions 127 Conclusions 135 Implications for policy, practice and research 139 Implications for schools and school leaders 142 References 146 Index 150

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures 1.1 Rate of permanent exclusions in England by school type, 2007–2018 6 2.1 School exclusions by type of schools – the academy factor 20 2.2 Rate of permanent exclusions by National Curriculum Year in England 22 5.1 Trend in permanent exclusions in England by main ethnic groups 76

Tables 1.1 2.1 2.2 5.1

Number of exclusions in schools in England, 2011–2018 Reasons for exclusion, 2017–2018 Permanent exclusion rates by school governance type Exclusions by pupil characteristics in schools in England, percentage of population, 2018 6.1 SEN pupil exclusions by pupil characteristics in schools in England, 2018 6.2 SEN pupil exclusions by ethnic background in England. 2018, percentage of population

7 17 19 77 94 95

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is based on original research conducted by the author over two years on school exclusions and suspension. The authors would like to thank the headteachers, teachers, parents, pupils, school governors, educational psychologists, SENCOs, and community leaders who took part in the various activities, including the case study interviews and focus groups. Unfortunately, promises about confidentiality prohibit us from naming them here. The school and the staff interviewed are coded and given pseudonyms. The research was supported by Lambeth School Partnership (LSP). I would like also to extend particular thanks to Cathy Twist, Director of Education, who approved and supported this research on behalf of the authority. Special thanks are due to Rebecca Butler, James McDonald, Andrew Hau, and Robert Tong, Schools Research and Statistics, for helpful comments and for editing substantial parts of the manuscript. All extracts and quotations of the book chapters are used with the kind permission of Christabel Mclean. Where this is the case, their source is referenced. Where I am not the sole author, the co-authors to whom I owe a debt of gratitude are listed. All journals and their editors who published articles of mine that are used as a reference in the book, the referees who comments on my papers, and those who edited this book are also owed a lot of thanks. Every effort was also made to trace copyright holders of materials in our references and to obtain their permission to any quotations we have made in this research report. The authors apologise for any error or omissions and would be grateful if notified of any corrections. I accept full and sole responsibility for any mistakes or unintentional misrepresentations in reporting the findings.

GLOSSARY – A GUIDE TO ACRONYMS

ADHD ASD AP BAME BESD CPD CAMHS DCSF Df E Df ES EAL EHCP EP EYFS FSM GCSE HMI HLTA IEP INSET KS1 LA LACK LM MLD NQT ODD

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Autistic Spectrum Disorder Alternative Provision Black Asian and Minority Ethnic Behaviour Emotional and Social Difficulties Continuing Professional Development Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services Department for Children Schools and Families Department for Education Department for Education and Skills English as an Additional language Education, Health and Care Plan Educational Psychologist Early Years Foundation Stage Free school meals General Certificate of Secondary Education Her Majesty’s Inspectorate Higher Level Teaching Assistant Individual Education Plan In Service Educational Training Key Stage 1 Local Authority Looked After Children Learning Mentors Moderate Learning Difficulties Newly Qualified Teacher Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Glossary – A guide to acronyms  xiii

Ofsted PRU PSHE SEBD SEMH SEN SEND SENCOs SLD SLT SMT TA

Office for Standards in Education Pupil Referral Unit Personal, Social and Health Education Social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties Social Emotional and Mental Health difficulties Special Educational Needs Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Special Educational Needs Coordinators Severe Learning Difficulties Senior Leadership Team Senior Management Team Teaching Assistant

NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

Definition of exclusion from school The exclusion from school is a disciplinary action that is exercised by a headteacher in England as the severest punishment (Middleton and Kay 2020; Keane 2010; Munn et al. 2000). Headteachers are allowed by law to use three types of exclusion, including internal exclusions, fixed-term, and permanent exclusion (Df E 2017), but informal exclusions and off-rolling are also practiced. These are described below:

Disproportionality in school exclusions Disproportionality in school exclusions in this book refers to the over-­representation or under-representation of a racial or ethnic group or special educational needs pupils compared with its percentage in the total population in the school.

Fixed-term exclusions Fixed-term exclusions are where a student is excluded from school for a fixed, ­predetermined period of time.This cannot amount to more than 15 days in any one term (Df E 2019a, 2006).

Informal exclusions Informal exclusions refer to the type of exclusions such as sending a pupil home to cool off or the school putting a pupil on a ‘part-time’ timetable. Under the law school in England do not have the power to informally exclude.

Note on terminology  xv

Internal exclusions Internal exclusion is a form of exclusion in which a young person remains on the school campus but is separated from other students and removed from their normal classes.

Off-rolling Ofsted argues that off-rolling is the process of removing a child from the school’s register for the benefit of the school (Ofsted 2018a, 2018b). There is now evidence that off-rolling is used to reduce the cost of supporting the child or to improve the school’s academic rankings.

Permanent exclusions Permanent exclusion is where the child is no longer allowed to attend school.Their name will be removed from the school roll following the school’s behaviour policy. It is a serious measure a school can use in dealing with school exclusions.

PART I

Introduction School exclusions contexts and policy concerns

1 INTRODUCTION The scale of exclusions problems and policy concerns

Why the interest in school exclusions? School exclusion is a hot issue within education, and there has been considerable concern amongst education policymakers, teachers, school leaders, parents, and communities about the growing numbers of exclusions and off-rolling in schools in England. In particular, a number of studies have drawn attention to the rise in school exclusions and suspensions (see Demie 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Demie and Maclean 2017; Df E 2019; EPI 2019; IPPR 2017; Parsons 2009, 2011; Timpson 2019; Wright 2010). This has brought exclusions issues to the front of public and education policy debate in England. The review of previous research also suggests that Black and SEN pupils represent the most excluded groups of pupils in British schools (Demie 2019a, 2019b; Df E 2019; EHRC 2015; EPI 2019; House of Common Library 2018; IPPR 2017; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b; Parsons 2011, 2009, 2008; Power and Taylor 2018; Timpson 2019). In addition to Black Caribbean students, Gypsy/Roma and Traveller pupils and Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils are over-represented in the exclusions statistics in England. This is affected by many factors influencing their education including racism and discrimination, myths, and stereotyping (see Demie 2019a, 2019b, 2019c:2). Recent research suggested that there is unconscious racist stereotyping in teachers’ perceptions, especially of Black pupils (IPPR 2017). For example, Demie’s (2019a, 2019b, 2019c) study confirms that schools exclude Black Caribbean pupils in circumstances where they would have been less likely to exclude a White pupil. The study suggested a number of reasons for exclusions, including racism, teachers’ low expectations, institutional racism, lack of diversity in the school workforce, and lack of effective training of staff on multicultural education, diversity, and race issues. It also highlighted that Black Caribbean pupils are disciplined more harshly than other students. DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-2

4  Introduction

Many researchers have discussed racism as one explanation for the enduring nature of the disproportionate exclusion rate of Black Caribbean pupils (Demie 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; IPPR 2017; Stamou et al. 2014; Strand and Fletcher 2015; Parsons 2008; Wright 2010) when overlapping factors such as poverty or additional needs were not controlled for. Racism was considered to influence schools’ views on unacceptable behaviour and expectations of different sets of pupils. As a result, they tend to exclude Black pupils from general learning and classroom activities. Research Department for Education and Skills (2006) shows a number of other reasons for Black pupils disproportionately exclusion, including institutional racism. The report by Meridth (2020) also argued that throughout their education Black pupils are disciplined and punished more frequently often for milder offenses than their White peers. There is prejudice from teachers about Black pupils and they encounter both conscious and unconscious prejudice. Recently the Department for Education (Df E 2019) also commissioned an independent literature review to support understanding of the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain pupils from English schools. They have also made a data analysis which will be published alongside this literature review. The review shows that Black Caribbean boys, children with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) and Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) children, are disproportionately excluded in English schools. A further data analysis after controlling for other factors about their background also shows that Black Caribbean children and some groups are more likely to be excluded than White British children. The data also suggest Indian children are less likely to be excluded (see Graham et al. 2019). Overall, previous research also suggests that Black Caribbean pupils represent the most excluded groups of pupils in schools (Bourne et al. 1994; Demie 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Demie and MacLean 2017; U.S. Department of Education 2016; EHRC 2015; Gillborn and Youdell 2000; IPPR 2017; Parsons 2009, 2005; Strand and Fletcher 2015). Similarly, the data confirm that rates of exclusion are still rising in England. There is a disproportionate number of children living in poverty, with special educational needs, and from minority ethnic groups excluded from schools. They also confirm the Df E’s (2006) conclusion that exclusion from school represents the starkest and absolute denial of education for Black Caribbean pupils and they are disproportionately excluded. Suspensions and expulsions are also used in schools in the USA to discipline students, and this had negatively impacted the achievement of Hispanic, African American, and American Indians. There is evidence that Black students disproportionately experience adverse disciplinary actions in the USA. For example, the U.S. Department of Education data (2016) show African American students were at greater risk for disciplinary measures than White students. The data also confirm that African American students were expelled at nine times the rate of White students in high school and five times more than White students in middle school. American Indian and Hispanic students also had higher rates of discipline than White students in several categories (U.S. Department of Education 2016).

Introduction  5

Other research in the USA also shows that African Americans and Latinos are negatively affected by disproportionate exclusions rates in comparison to Whites, and there is a racial bias and teachers’ lower expectations for African Americans and Latinos (Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007). This research also suggests that teachers’ expectations vary with students’ ethnic backgrounds, White teachers were found to hold the highest expectations of European American students. As a result, Black students were three and half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their White peers (Raffaele Mendez and Knoff 2003; Rudd 2014). We would argue that racial disproportionality in school exclusions is a problem facing schools in the United Kingdom (Demie 2019a, 2019c), the United States (Skiba et al. 2011, 2002; Wilson et al. 2020), and Australia (Hemphill et al. 2010). Students of colour, particularly Black Caribbean, Mixed White, and the Black Caribbean, Black African American, Hispanic, Native American, Māori and Gypsy, Irish travellers have been shown disproportionality in school exclusions. Research from different international contexts also consistently finds that students with minority students, indigenous students, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students in care are significantly over-represented in both suspensions and permanent exclusions (Beauchamp 2012; Dyson and Gallannaugh 2008; Graham 2020; Losen and Gillespie 2012). The empirical evidence in England also confirms the scale of the problem in school exclusions. For example, the Department for Education (Df E) data show that 7,905 pupils were permanently excluded from state-funded primary, secondary, and special schools in England in 2017/2018 compared to 4,630 in 2012/13. This was an increase of exclusion number by 3,275 pupils or 41% during the period. The evidence of the fixed term exclusion also suggests about 410,800 pupils were excluded compared to 265,520 in the same period, an increase of 145,280 pupils or 35% (Df E 2019). Permanent exclusions were mainly found in the secondary sector. The data show that this is equating to 0.2% of the secondary school population compared to 0.03% of the primary school population (Df E 2019) (Figure 1.1). As can be seen in Table 1.1, both the numbers and rates of permanent exclusions are higher in 2017/18 than in 2010, both overall and in PRUs and alternative provision. The highest number of permanent exclusions was recorded in England in the 2017/18 academic year.This is equating to 0.10% of the school population in England. Historical evidence also shows that exclusion rates were highest in 2006/07 and gradually fell before starting to rise again in 2015. This is true for permanent and fixed period exclusions and for both primary and secondary schools (see Df E 2019; Figure 1.1). The sharp rise in pupil exclusions from English state schools was also further highlighted by media with the following headlines: • •

‘Sharp rise in pupil exclusions from English state schools.’ (The Guardian, 21 June 2018) ‘Education Secretary orders Df E review into rising numbers of school exclusions.’ (TES, 11 March 2018)

6  Introduction

‘The rise in school exclusions is a result of the education market.’ (The Guardian, 4 September 2018) • ‘Thousands of pupils missing from English school rolls – Informal exclusions cited as a possible reason.’ (The Guardian, 21 June 2018) • ‘Ofsted has identified 300 schools with high levels of so-called off-rolling, where pupils disappear from the school register just before GCSEs.’ (The Guardian, 26 June 2018) • ‘The government has been urged to address ‘deeply concerning’ rates of exclusion in England’s secondary schools.’(The Guardian, 31 August 2018) • ‘Off-rolling: Fifth of teachers have seen schools remove students through the backdoor to improve results.’ (The Independent, 21 September 2018) • ‘Schools exclude thousands in the run-up to GCSEs.’ (The Times, 28 August 2018) • ‘Weak pupils expelled as heads ‘game’ exam tables.’ (The Times, 28 August 2018) • ‘More than 49,000 pupils ‘disappeared’ from English schools.’ (The Guardian, 18 April 2019) • ‘Data reveals one in twelve school children in 2012-17 were removed from rolls without explanation.’ (The Guardian, 18 April 2019) • ‘Schools told to stop using exclusions to boost their results.’ (The Observer, 5 May 2019) •

0.23 0.2

0.2 Secondary

0.12 Special

0.07

All 0.02

0.1

Primary

0.03

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Rate of permanent exclusions in England by school type, 2007–2018 Source: DfE (2019) FIGURE 1.1 

Introduction  7 TABLE 1.1  Number of exclusions in schools in England, 2011–2018

All Schools Permanent

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

PRU, Academy Alternative Provision

Fixed period

Permanent

Fixed period

Number

Rate (%)

Number

Rate (%)

Number

Rate (%)

Number

Rate (%)

5,080 5,170 4,630 4,949 5,795 6,684 7,720 7,905

0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.10

324,110 304,370 267,520 269,475 302,975 339,362 381,864 410,753

4.34 4.05 3.51 3.50 3.88 4.29 4.76 5.08

13 17 21 21 27

0.10 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.16

15,536 19,409 23,399 25,815 26,504

120.50 142.89 155.84 164.75 158.40

Source: Demie (2019b); DfE (2019)

The aims of the book and a note on research Despite considerable concern amongst education policymakers, teachers, school leaders, and parents about the growing numbers of exclusions and research evidence that Black and Ethnic Minority pupils (BAME) and those with Special Educational Needs (SEN) continue to be at greater risk of exclusion from school, there has been little research into factors associated with rising in school exclusions and on what can be done in tackling exclusions. The aim of this book is to examine empirical evidence for a rise in school exclusions in England and to explore the causes and consequences of school exclusions. It will provide a much-needed focus on the experience of teachers, school leaders, and parents on school exclusions and suspension by drawing upon research that examined ethnic and SEN disproportionality. Four overarching questions guided the writing of this book: • What is the scale of exclusions problems and policy concerns? • What are the factors associated with rising in school exclusions? • What are teachers and school staff experiences with school exclusions in England? • What are the ethnic and SEN disproportionality in school exclusions? • What is the international experience in school exclusions? • What is the implication for policy, practice, and research? The methodological approach used to gather evidence for the book is mixed methods research that combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research for the

8  Introduction

purpose of increasing the breadth and depth of understanding exclusions issues in schools. The research uses two complementary research approaches to answer the above research questions: • First, a review of available published statistics was undertaken to examine exclusion trends followed by a review of literature on causes, consequences, and experience in school exclusions in England and elsewhere.1 • Second, detailed case study interviews were carried out to study the causes, consequences, and disproportionality in school exclusions in inner London local authority schools. In total 16 schools were involved in the study from 16 schools and 10 local authorities in London. Each school was visited in 2019 and 2020. Headteachers selected random people for the interviews. Structured questionnaires were used to interview the 6 headteachers, 8 Deputy headteachers, 14 teachers, 10 Teaching Assistants, and school support staff, 16 governors, 9 parents, 10 educational psychologists, and 8 special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs), and 10 Local Authority (LA) inclusion co-ordinators to gather evidence. Separate focus groups were set up for governors to explore their perspectives with school exclusions. To select schools and respondents purposive sampling is used. Purposeful sampling is ‘a technique widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources. This involves identifying and selecting individuals or groups of individuals that are especially knowledgeable about or experienced with a phenomenon of interest’ (Palinkas et al. 2015:2; Patton 2002). It is a non-random sampling technique that does not have a set number of respondents in the study. In this sampling approach, researchers also decide the number of people who are willing to provide the data based on their knowledge or experience. It is also a low-cost, convenient, not timeconsuming approach for obtaining detailed in-depth information evidence (see Bernard 2002; Cresswell and Plano 2011; Patton 2002). As part of the purposive sampling approach for our study, 12 schools with extensive exclusions experience were selected. Headteachers were then asked to select respondents in the school who had worked on exclusions and would be especially knowledgeable about the issues. A list of participants’ names was sent to me promptly via email, and arrangements were then made for the interview via the school. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to interview school staff to gather evidence and to capture the causes of exclusions, and why certain groups are over-represented. We would argue that our methodological approach of using a case study is an established research design that is used in various disciplines, particularly in social sciences, to extend the range of information and evidence. Such methods are useful to obtain in-depth information about personal and group feeling in a way that would not be feasible using other methods such as observation, one-to-one interviewing, or questionnaire surveys. It can serve multiple audiences, and, in this particular instance, the audience is likely to be policymakers and schools. It allows a lot of detail to be collected that would not normally be easily obtained by other

Introduction  9

research designs (see Bassey 1999; Bell 1993; Carey and Asbury 2016; Demie 2019b; Demie and Maclean 2017; Stake 1995). As argued elsewhere, The research design is unique for obtaining detailed in-depth information about personal and group feelings, perceptions, and opinions, in a way that observation and questionnaire cannot reveal on their own, and because the findings are so accessible, they can serve a variety of audiences, not only policymakers, school managers and teachers. (Demie 2019b:200) In total, 88 people were interviewed. This includes 6 headteachers, 8 deputy headteachers, 14 classroom teachers, 9 parents, 16 school governors, 8 school SENCOs, 10 Education Psychologists, 7 LA special educational needs and Inclusion co-ordinators, and 10 teaching assistants, learning mentors, and school staff. Three of the headteachers interviewed were from a White background. The majority of staff interviewed were also from White backgrounds. Almost all parents interviewed were Black with a small number of mixed White/Black parents. The governors interviewed were mixed with equal numbers of White and Black heritage backgrounds. The research into school exclusions was conducted in line with the Data Protection Act (2018), and all the interviews and case study participants were given assurances that their confidentiality and anonymity would be maintained. Thus, schools were given pseudonyms. However, it should be noted that some of the case respondents were concerned that their viewpoints might be identifiable. The extent of this concern was exemplified by some respondents who agreed to be interviewed with the proviso that their interview was not tape-recorded. Where a participant did not want to be taped, their responses were recorded by one of the teams using shorthand, while a second-team member also made note of the interview and answers. Both were carefully checked to ensure consistency during transcriptions of the record. In recognition of the identification concerns expressed by some respondents, the data discussed in this book is done so without any attribution being made to a particular school or person. Care has been taken with all stages of the research process therefore to not only ensure that participants and institutional names remain anonymous, but that the data are kept securely, and individual digital recordings have been deleted or destroyed upon transcription. Pupils, parents, and teachers were given an opportunity at the beginning of their interview to decline from participating once a member of the research team explained the nature of the research. The findings which emerged from the study are given in the chapters that follow.

The structure of the book The book is a result of a broad study that stretches over two years in London schools and seeks to provide answers to these and other questions.The book is written with a potentially broad readership in mind. We hope that the idea and understandings

10  Introduction

proposed within it will be relevant for a range of researchers/academics, students, teachers, school leaders, practitioners, education professionals, and policymakers. The book has four parts and seven chapters, depending on the reader’s role, interest, and needs. Each part or chapter can be read from start to finish or maybe selectively read in any order. The following outline of the report structure is intended to help readers to navigate their way through the text. Chapter 1, the Introduction, effectively sets the scene for the book and discusses policy context in relation to issues of school exclusions. Key pieces of literature were reviewed on causes, consequences, and concerns among policymakers, teachers, and school leaders about the growing number of exclusions in schools. It also looks into the methodological approach used for research to understand exclusions issues in schools including data analysis, and case studies interviews to capture the views of headteachers, teachers, school support staff, SENCOs, governors, parents, and educational psychologists on the reasons and cause of exclusions and why certain groups are over-represented. The chapter maps out the introduction under the following sections: • • •

The empirical evidence for the scale of exclusions problems and policy concerns. Literature reviews: key debates on causes, consequences in school exclusions in England and elsewhere. The aims of the book and note on research.

Chapter 2 examines factors associated with rising school exclusions in England schools. Drawing on the literature review and case study interviews, the chapter presents key evidence and explanations to factors associated with rising in school exclusions under the following sections: • • • •

The introduction of the education market and league table. Fragmentation of education system in England. Informal off-rolling, rising numbers of children in poverty and with complex needs. Austerity and funding cuts.

This chapter also discusses how the market alternative in education that has resulted in rising school exclusions and a fragmentation of the education system has gained ground in policymaking in the USA and the UK.The above factors associated with school exclusion are supported by evidence collected during the research from school leaders, teachers, and governors and statistical evidence published by the government, and a review of the literature. Chapter 3 discusses the views and experience of the headteacher, teachers, school staff, governors, school staff, and SENCOs on school exclusions. The key question t asked during the interview to gain more insight was: What is your experience with school exclusions? The main findings were discussed in detail in the following sections including:

Introduction  11

• • •

Teachers and school staff experience with school exclusions. SENCOs’ experience with school exclusions. Governor’s experience with school exclusions.

The chapter concludes with the discussion of the implication of the school experience with exclusions. Chapter 4 explores the views of parents with school exclusions and discusses their experiences of children that schools excluded or risk exclusions under the following headings: • • •

Literature review: parents’ experience with exclusions. Key findings of research into parents’ experience. Concluding remarks and implications.

The next three chapters (Chapters 5–7) take further teachers and school experience by looking into the reasons for the over-representation of ethnic and SEN pupils in school exclusions. In Chapter 5 we investigate the reasons for the over-representation of Black and ethnic minority (BAME) pupils in school exclusions. It asks: ‘What are the reasons for over-representation of BAME?’ Drawing on the case study evidence, this chapter explores the reasons for the over-representation of BAME in school exclusions under the following sections. The study identified the reasons for overrepresentation in school exclusions including: • • • • •

Institutional racism. Stereotyping. Teachers’ low expectations. Unconscious bias. Challenging behaviour.

The above reasons for BAME disproportionality in school exclusion is supported by the evidence collected during the research from school leaders, teachers, parents, governors, educational psychologists, and special educational psychologist coordinators Attention is also given in the last section of this chapter about BAME disproportionality in school exclusions. The chapter concludes by proposing a challenge for tackling the over-representation of BAME pupils in school exclusions for policymakers and schools. In Chapter 6 we investigate special educational needs (SEN) pupils’ disproportionality in school exclusions. It asks: ‘What are the reasons for the over-representation of SEN pupils?’ Drawing on the evidence of the interview, this chapter explores the reasons for the over-representation of SEN in school exclusions under the following sections. The study identified the reasons for over-representation in school exclusions including: • •

Behaviour difficulties. Lack of appropriate training for teachers and SENCOs.

12  Introduction

• • •

Lack guidance for teaching of SEN pupils and behaviour management. Budget cut and lack of funding. Problems with teaching style in mainstream schools.

The above reasons for SEN disproportionality in school exclusion are supported by the evidence collected during the research from school leaders, teachers, parents, governors, educational psychologists, and special educational coordinators.The chapter concludes by proposing a challenge for tackling the over-representation of SEN pupils in school exclusions for policymakers and schools. Chapter 7 explores the wider international experience in school exclusions. Based on the finding from a review of evidence on the wider international experience in school exclusions including ethnic and SEN disproportionality, it will argue where England sits in relation to other contexts to draw implications for tackling school exclusion and exclusion policy. Chapter 8, the final chapter, will explore first the lessons in tackling school exclusions by looking at a wide range of approaches that are covered in the literature to prevent exclusion. This will be followed by conclusions of the key findings from research into school exclusions, including lessons from England and international research. The final section draws implications of research, including: • • • • •

Implications for the Central Government and local authorities in England. Implications for schools. Implications for other countries. Implications for school exclusions data collection. Implications for research communities.

Note 1 To identify relevant studies, I have conducted systematic reviews of the pre-existing literature amounting to a total of around 33,000 distinct reports related to school exclusions and suspensions. The reports were in a number of electronic databases and search engines, Google, and Google Scholar. The bulk of the relevant references came from the main educational, sociological, psychological databases. As the purpose of this literature review was to identify the experience in school exclusions by teachers, governors, parents, SENCOs, and EPS and including ethnic and SEN disproportionality in school exclusions and suspension, the following keywords were used to search:

• School exclusions and suspensions. • Schools’ experience in school exclusions. • Parents’ experience in school exclusions. • Teachers’ experience in school exclusions. • Ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions. • SEN disproportionality in school exclusions. • School suspensions and exclusion. • School discipline.

Introduction  13

I was generally looking for reports of research available in English over the past 20 years. This led to thousands of reports for each review, even after duplicates and a few obvious errors had been deleted. The next stage was to use the title and abstracts to delete further reports now found not to meet the search criteria in practice. The remaining piece was used for literature review with a focus on England and international experience. As a result of the systematic review of literature and eyeballing of these pieces by titles and abstracts, we finally identified 180 publications that are relevant for this study and the writing of the book. This includes government publications and data, and research published in the refereed journals in England, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and international level which are used as a reference in writing the book.

References Bassey, M. (1999) Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press. Beauchamp, T. (2012) Addressing high rates of school suspension. Parramatta, NSW: Uniting Care Burnside Social Justice Unit. http://apo.org.au/system/files/32180/apo-nid3218099201.pdf Bell, J. (1993) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bernard, H. R. (2002) Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative methods. 3rd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Bourne, J., Bridges, L., and Searle, C. (1994) Outcast England: How schools excluded black children. London: Institute of Race Relations. Carey, M. A., and Asbury, J. E. (2016) Focus group research. London: Routledge. Cresswell, J. W., and Plano,V. L. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed method research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Data protection Act (2018). London: UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/data-protection Demie, F. (2019a) ‘The experience of Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F. (2019b) Exclusions of pupils from schools in England: Extent, causes and consequences: Research Project Brief. London: Lambeth School Research and Statistics Unit. https:// www.lambeth.gov.uk/rsu/sites/; www.lambeth.gov.uk.rsu/files/school_exclusions_in_ england_research_brief.pdf Demie, F. (2019c) Educational inequality: Closing the gap. UCL IOE Press. Demie, F. and Maclean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean Underachievement in schools in England. Lambeth, LA: Lambeth School Research and Statistics. Df E (2019) Permanent and Fixed-period exclusions in England 2017–2018. London: Department for Education, 25 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-andfixed-period-exclusions-in-england-2017-to-2018 Df ES (2006) Exclusion of Black pupils priority review: Getting it, getting it right. London: Department for Education and Skills. Dyson, A., and Gallannaugh, F. (2008) ‘Disproportionality in special needs education in England’, The Journal of Special Education 42(1): 36–46. doi: 10.1177/0022466907313607 EHRC (2015) Is Britain fairer? The state of equality and human rights. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-britainfairer-the-state-of-equality-and-human-rights-2015

14  Introduction

EPI (2019) Unexplained pupil exits from schools: A growing problem? London: Education Policy Unit, April. https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EPI_Unexplained-pupilexits_2019.pdf Gillborn, D., and Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Graham, L. (2020) ‘Questioning the impacts of legislative change on the use of exclusionary discipline in the context of broader system reforms:A Queensland case-study’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 24(14): 1473–1493. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1540668. https://defenddigitalme.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Timpson_review_of_ school_exclusion_literature_review.pdf Graham, B., White, C., Edwards, A., Potter, S., and Street, C. (2019) School exclusion: A literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children, Department for Education, May. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800028/Timpson_review_of_school_exclusion_literature_review.pdf Hemphill, S. A.,Toumbourou, J.W., and Smith, Rachel. (2010) ‘Are rates of school suspension higher in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods? An Australian study’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia 21(1): 12–18. House of Common Library (2018) Off-rolling in English schools. London: House of Common Library brief, Number 08444, 10 December. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8444 IPPR (2017) Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ making-the-difference-report-october-2017.pdf Losen, D. J., and Gillespie, J. (2012) Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of disciplinary exclusion from school. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project. http://civilrightsproject. ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prisonfolder/ federal-reports/ Meridth, M. (2020). Where one size fits all. https://marymered.com/ Ofsted (2018a) Off-rolling: Using data to see a fuller picture, Blog Posted by: Jason Bradbury, June. https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/26/off-rolling-using-data-tosee-a-fuller-picture/ Ofsted (2018b) School inspection update. special edition https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742258/School_inspection_ update_-_special_edition_September_2018.pdf Palinkas, L., Horwitz, S., Green, C., Wisdom, J., Duan, N., and Hoagwood, K. (2015) ‘Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research’, Administration and Policy in Mental Health 42(5): 533–544. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y Parsons, C. (2005) ‘School Exclusion: The will to punish’, British Journal of Educational Studies 53(2): 187–211. Parsons, C. (2008) ‘Race relations legislation, ethnicity, and disproportionality in school exclusions in England’, Cambridge Journal of Education 39(3): 401–419. Parsons, C. (2009) ‘Explaining sustained inequalities in ethnic minority school exclusions in England—passive racism in a neoliberal grip’, Oxford Review of Education 35(2): 249–265. Parsons, C. (2011) Strategic alternatives to exclusions from schools. London:Trentham Book Publishers. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] Power, S., and Taylor, C. (2018) ‘Not in the classroom, but still on the register: Hidden forms of school exclusion’, International Journal of Inclusive Education. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1492644

Introduction  15

Raffaele Mendez, L. M., and Knoff, H. M. (2003). ‘Who gets suspended from school and why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school ­district’. Education and Treatment of Children 26: 30–51. Rudd,T. (2014) Racial disproportionality in school discipline. Ohio: Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. The Ohio State University. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., and Tobin, T. (2011) ‘Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline’, School Psychology Review 40(1): 85–107. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., and Peterson, R. (2002) ‘The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment’, Urban Review 34(4): 317–342. Stake, R.E. (1995) The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Stamou, E., Edwards, A., Daniels, H., and Ferguson, L. (2014) Young people at-risk of dropout from education: Recognising and responding to their needs. Oxford: University of Oxford. https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/content/user/4508/Stamou%20et%20al%20-%20 Literature%20review%20-%202014.pdf Strand, S., and Fletcher, J. (2015) A quantitative longitudinal analysis of exclusions from English secondary schools. Oxford: Education Department. http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Exclusion-from-Secondary-schools_small.pdf Tenenbaum, H. R., and Ruck, M. (2007) ‘Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than European American students? A meta-analysis’, Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 253–273. Timpson, D. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2016) 2013–2014 Civil rights data collection: A first look. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, December. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf Wilson, M., Yull, G., and Massey, S. (2020) ‘Race and the politics of educational exclusion: Explaining the persistence of disproportionate disciplinary practices in an urban school district’, Race Ethnicity and Education 23(1): 134–157. Wright, C. (2010) ‘Othering difference: Framing identities and representation in black ­children’s schooling in the British context’, Irish Educational Studies 29(3): 305–320.

2 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH RISE IN SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

Introduction The previous chapter explored the empirical evidence on a rise in school exclusions since 2012/13 (see Table 1.1).There is evidence from literature that the rise in exclusion from schools is associated with a number of social and economic factors (see Demie 2019b; Parsons 2009). This concern in the increase in rate of school exclusions led the government to conduct an independent review by Edward Timpson (Df E 2019). This chapter looks into the reasons for exclusions and a number of factors associated with school exclusions in England schools. Drawing on the literature review and case study and focus group interview, a number of reasons and factors were identified for a rise in school exclusions, including the introduction of education market and league table, fragmentation of education system in England, informal off-rolling, rising numbers of children in poverty and with complex needs, austerity, and funding cuts. These are discussed below.

Reasons for school exclusions A number of reasons were given for exclusion from schools. The most common reason recorded for permanent exclusions in state-funded schools was ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ which accounted for 34% of all permanent exclusions (Table 2.1). This was followed by ‘physical assault against an adult’ (13.1%), ‘physical assault against a pupil’ (10.7%), and ‘verbal abuse or threatening behaviour against an adult’ (8.2%). Similarly, the most common reason for fixed period exclusions from statefunded primary, secondary, and special schools in England was ‘persistent disruptive behaviour,’ accounting for 30% of fixed period exclusions. The second most common reason recorded was ‘physical assault against a pupil’ (16.4%), followed by ‘verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against an adult’ (15.2%). DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-3

Factors associated with rise in exclusions  17 TABLE 2.1  Reasons for exclusion, 2017–2018

Reasons for exclusion Physical assault against a pupil Physical assault against an adult Verbal abuse/ threatening behaviour against a pupil Verbal abuse/ threatening behaviour against an adult Bullying Racist abuse Sexual misconduct Drug and alcohol related Damage Theft Persistent disruptive behaviour Other Total

Permanent exclusions (%) Primary

Secondary

Fixed period exclusions (%)

All*

Primary

12.1

13.2

13.1

21

33.7

6.1

10.7

4.1

4.3

6.7

Secondary

All*

15.4

16.4

27.4

1.6

6.8

4.3

3.8

3.8

3.8

8.6

8.2

9.5

16.6

15.2

0.3 0.2 1.0 0.2

0.4 0.2 1.3 9.6

0.4 0.2 1.3 8.1

0.6 0.8 0.3 0.1

0.9 1.1 0.6 2.9

0.9 1.1 0.5 2.4

0.7 0.1 32.8

1.0 0.6 34.4

1.0 0.5 34.0

2.3 0.2 28.2

1.6 1.2 30.9

1.8 1.0 30.0

8.0 100

20.3 100

18.2 100

5.9 100

23.4 100

20.1 100

* All includes special schools Source: Df E (2019)

There were also differences by phase, with primary schools being much more likely to record ‘physical assault against an adult’ accounting for about one in four of all fixed period exclusions (27%), compared with only 1.6% of fixed period exclusions at secondary school. Secondary school fixed period exclusions were more likely than primary schools to be coded as ‘verbal abuse/threatening behaviour against an adult’ or ‘other’ raising issues about the quality of data sent by schools.

Factors associated with rising school exclusions Education market and fragmentation of the education system in England The main reasons given for the rise in school exclusions by headteachers, teachers, parents’ governors, and SENCOs interviewed were a result of education market policy, league table publications, and the fragmentation of the education system

18  Introduction

in England. Schools and researchers blamed the rise in exclusions to education market experiment that uses national test and examination results to judge school performance. The negative effects associated with performance tables and the government education market experimentation are articulated well by governors, headteachers, and parents and teachers interviewed during the focus group: The government has reduced state education in England to a quasi-market where children and their families are the customers, and high achievement in a narrow range of subjects the product. (Governor T) Schools are judged on examination and test results based on league tables. This has produced winners and losers in the school systems. Headteachers and teachers either keep or lose their jobs, or communities keep or lose schools. (Chair of Governors K) Special Educational needs children and children who find learning difficult have little value in the market. As a result, they are excluded, and their needs are overlooked in favour of those children who learn what they are expected to learn (Chair of Governors W) Academy chains, academy PRUs are not accountable to local systems. As a result of fragmentation, many students were excluded (Parent Governor L) Academies are using exclusions to ‘improve’ examination results. (Teacher B) Governors, parents, and teaches articulated the government policy to reduce state education to market-driven agenda and a deteriorating situation in school exclusions. It also highlighted how school is judged using national tests and examination results with special needs and children who find learning difficult are not getting the support they need and little value for the marketisation policy. As a result of fragmentation, many students were excluded from the academies and state schools. There is also evidence that fragmentation of the education system in England into a number of structures including state, academies, and free schools has resulted in the rise in school exclusions (House of Common Library 2018). They are using exclusions to ‘improve’ examination results (House of Common Library 2018; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b). This is also evident when we compare permanent exclusions between LA maintained and academy primary schools that academy schools have higher rates of exclusions (Table 2.2). However, breaking this down into types of academies shows a further difference with sponsored academies having much

Factors associated with rise in exclusions  19 TABLE 2.2  Permanent exclusion rates by school governance type

Permanent

State-funded primary schools LA-maintained primary schools Primary academies Of which converter academies Of which sponsored academies: Of which free schools State-funded secondary schools LA-maintained secondary schools Secondary academies Of which converter academies Of which sponsored academies: Of which free schools Special schools LA-maintained special schools Non-maintained special schools Special academies

Fixed term

2016/7

2017/8

2016/7

2017/8

0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 x 0.2 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.32 0.25 0.07 0.06 x 0.11

0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.2 0.21 0.2 0.15 0.33 0.24 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.06

1.37 1.23 1.86 1.21 3.43 0.87 9.4 8.85 9.66 6.77 18.07 9.59 13.03 12.32 13.18 15.37

1.4 1.21 1.89 1.28 3.45 1.2 10.13 9.42 10.43 6.88 20.38 10.49 12.34 10.9 13.85 15.88

Source: Df E (2019)

higher exclusion rates than convertor academies. At the secondary school level, the difference is starker. While there is little difference between maintained and academy schools overall, sponsored academies have permanent exclusions rates of at least twice of that found in convertor academies in each of the last two years. Examination of fixed period exclusions has a similar profile. At the primary phase, academies have higher rates of fixed period exclusions than maintained schools (about one and a half times as great in each of the last two years). However, when we compare exclusions rate by type of academy, sponsored academies had a fixed period exclusion rate that was twice that of convertor academies. Converter academies had similar rates of exclusion to LA-maintained primaries. Ofsted evidence also confirms that the incidence of ‘off-rolling is not evenly spread across the sector. There is a higher proportion of schools in London practicing off-rolling with the movement of pupils compared to other areas of the country. Academies, particularly those in some multi-academy trusts, appear to be losing proportionately more pupils than local authority schools (Ofsted 2018a, 2018b). Exclusions data by school also suggest that in schools with high rates of exclusions at least one in five pupils was excluded from academies. Figure 2.1 shows that 45 secondaries excluded between 20% and 40% of its school population students. Of the 45 schools with the highest exclusions, 40 are academies and 5 are LA-maintained schools, and one academy excluded over 41% of its students in one year. The above evidence from the interview and the data are also well supported by the evidence from literature reviews and show that one of the reasons for the increasing number of unofficial or illegal exclusions has been the marketisation of

20  Introduction Pupils with one or more fixed-term exclusion %

% of Fixed term exclusions

45

41

40

Academy

LA maintained

35 30 25 20

24 24 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21

25 25 25 25 25

34

26 26 27

28 27 28

30 30

15 10 5 0

FIGURE 2.1 

Schools

School exclusions by type of schools – the academy factor

Source: Df E (2019)

the English education system as well as governmental pressure in terms of performance league tables (Gazeley et al. 2015; Parsons 2008). In the United States and the UK, the market alternative in education is gaining ground in policymaking, and this has resulted in a fragmentation of the education system. Ball (1993:1) highlighted the problems with market approach policy and argued that ‘the parental choice and school competition are seen as ways of achieving reform and raising standard while at the same time reducing State intervention into education planning in England.’ His research suggests that such an approach is not the way forward and has failed to address inequality in education. Gazeley et al. (2015) and Farouk (2017) also attribute the increase in exclusions to the marketisation and competitive political agenda in which schools currently have to operate. He argued that government performance tables and ratings are largely focused on exam grades. It automatically undermines the targeted support for pupils and demotes personal involvement with students.The performance table ratings which focus on exam results also ignore any support for those with additional educational or mental health needs. This internal marketisation and opening competition of the school systems is unhelpful as it has a negative impact on a local authority’s services. This has encouraged the LA to look at a wide range of schools for managed moves.’ Cole et al.’s (2019) research also reported similar findings on the main reasons why permanent exclusions had more tripled in England, including weakness in the accountability system, lack of inclusive curriculum, and lack of funding to support excluded children in school. They felt in particular that: It is because of how schools are judged … It’s about if kids aren’t going to succeed in terms of the data and Progress 8 … It feels like there’s a culture of much less tolerance of behaviours in schools than there used to be. (Cole et al. 2019:94)

Factors associated with rise in exclusions  21

Cole et al. also further highlighted the following factors for the increase in exclusions in England schools: • • • •

Accountability systems and curricular demands undermining inclusive practice. the shift of power and resources away from LAs and towards headteachers, in part through academisation.’ acute financial pressures exacerbating schools’ and LAs’ ability to offer the flexible support needed to minimise exclusions; Wider societal issues including parenting and social deprivation. (2019:380)

Cole et al. (2019) also question the whole academisation programme that has resulted in more exclusions. They argued that it has obstructed the collaborative inclusive practice that has been used when all schools were part of the local authority, and it has now a negative impact on school exclusions as schools are competing with each other. We are in competition with everyone else…We do not care about our neighbours next door. Academies seems poorly informed about behaviour and SEND issues and they have lost that nurturing presence of the local authority. (Cole et al. 2019:383)

Informal off-rolling One of the reasons for unofficial excursions that resulted in the rise in school exclusions is related to off-rolling in English schools (Demie 2019b; House of Common Library 2018; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b). This is supported by national data that show Year 10 has the largest increase in the rate of permanent exclusions (House of Common Library 2018; Figure 2.2).The empirical evidence also shows that schools are increasingly using the off-rolling approach of informal exclusions to improve the school performance system in England and to relieve financial pressure on schools (Ofsted 2018a, 2018b). The above data also suggest there is an increasing number of children in England that are ‘off-rolled’ and excluded.They are leaving school for other reasons, to ‘game’ the school performance system, or to relieve financial pressures on schools. There was also a substantial jump in the exclusion rate between the primary and secondary phases. This is further confirmed by the House of Commons report that: Suggested increased off-rolling is taking place because of the impact of pupils who are likely to perform relatively poorly in their examinations on school performance measures, and because schools may be struggling to support children who need high levels of support, for example, pupils with special educational needs. (House of Commons Library Briefing 2018:4)

Percentage of School Populaon

22  Introduction 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 2010/11

FIGURE 2.2 

2017/18

Rate of permanent exclusions by National Curriculum Year in England

Source: Df E (2019)

Ofsted also raised off-rolling as a major concern in its annual report with its implications in exclusions practice in schools (Ofsted 2018a).The Ofsted report confirms that around ‘19,000 pupils did not progress from Year 10 to Year 11 in the same statefunded secondary school.’ This is around 4% of the total (Demie 2019b; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b:50). Of those 19,000 pupils: The destination of 9,700 pupils is unclear because they do not reappear in another state-funded school’. ‘25% of pupils move to other secondary schools and 20% move to an alternative provision in the state-funded sector. (Ofsted 2018a, 2018b:50) Recent evidence from Education Policy Institute (EPI 2019) research into off-rolling in England found that more than 49,000 pupils who started secondary school in 2012 had disappeared from rolls without explanation by the time the cohort was 16. The empirical evidence also suggests that one in 12 pupils (8.1%) from the national cohort who began secondary school in 2012 and finished in 2017 was removed from rolls at some point, for unknown reasons. The EPI research also revealed that rates were particularly high in a small number of schools. Just 330 schools, which constitute 6% of secondary schools in England, accounted for almost a quarter (23%) of the total number of unexplained moves in 2017. (Weale 2019:1) The EPI researchers raised concerns about the size of unexplained pupil informal exclusions and argued that this may have been as a result of some schools off-rolling pupils.

Factors associated with rise in exclusions  23

Ofsted’s evidence also confirms that the issue of off-rolling is not evenly spread across the education sector. There is a higher proportion of schools in London where off-rolling is practiced with the movement of pupils compared to other areas in England. Ofsted also highlighted that academy schools are off-rolling proportionately more pupils than local authority schools (Ofsted 2018a, 2018b). We would argue that off-rolling now becomes a national concern as some secondary academy schools continue to exclude to improve their GCSE results. Concern about off-rolling sends children was also confirmed by the parent governor we interviewed. At her son’s secondary academy in Year 11, the school was involved in off-rolling pupils with SEN which they called ‘extended study leaves’ (parent governor in academy). This parent argued that I recognise that schools are under pressure to improve the school and the school self-evaluation plans they have put in place have to show a continued improvement in results across all cohorts, but particularly pupils who are vulnerable or disengaged. These schools adopt a one-size-fits-all approach and anyone who doesn’t fit in will probably leave and they are off-rolling them without considering factors such as SEND, ASD, disability, and ADHD. The parent argued that: School inclusion policies have to abide within the law and the Equalities Act, and they don’t. I would like to see it say: ‘Where relevant, they need make reasonable adjustments where a child has SEN or disabilities, to ensure they are not discriminating.’ They would need to make the cohort aware that this is a symptom of impairment not misbehaving. We ought to be considering earlier intervention. There is a big issue about children with SEND because they are more vulnerable, because the law offers protection, in reality, they are being pushed out. Perhaps a headteacher doesn’t understand that this child’s behaviour is a direct result of their impairment. (White Parent) It is unacceptable that children are off-rolled to improve GCSE results. Children, particularly those with special needs, are vulnerable in the systems and off-rolling without considering the SEN factors such as SEND, ASD, disability, and ADHD is against the law, although a number schools are using it as part of improving their exam results. The parent’s governors interviewed are also concerned by government behaviour and exclusions guidance (Df E 2017). She has seen a negative impact on the work in academies and in children at risk of exclusion. In her views and that of the other people interviewed the government is giving permission to schools not to work with children who are considered difficult and challenging or with children not going to achieve the government-expected standards at A level or GCSE and key stages.

Rising numbers of children in poverty and with complex needs There are over 14.4 million people in the UK living in poverty in 2011–2019. Of this 4.4 million were children (Social Metrics Commission – SMC 2020). Recent government data also attributed the rise in exclusions to increasing numbers of

24  Introduction

children with complex needs, including child poverty; family problems including parental mental ill health; learning needs; and an increase in the number of families facing multiple challenges who are receiving social care support (Demie 2019a; Demie and McLean 2017; Parsons 2009). This is also confirmed by the IPPR 2017 report that argued that exclusions are rising because schools are struggling to cater to the growing numbers of children with complex needs. Child poverty is increasing, as is mental ill-health, and the number of children in need of a social services assessment more than doubled from 2010 to 2016 to more than 170,000 children. Excluded children are four times more likely to be from the poorest families, eight out of ten of them have a special education need or disability and one in two has a recognised mental health need. (IPPR 2017) This is further supported by recent Department of Work and Pension (DWP) data which suggested that between 2010 and 2015, half a million more children fell into absolute poverty, and over four million children, or one in three in the UK, were living in relative poverty in 2018 (Social Metrics Commission 2019). The increase in both complex needs and poverty has contributed to a sharp increase in school exclusions. A headteacher commented: There are increasing numbers of children with these complex needs, and this may be a key driver in rising exclusion rates. These include child poverty; family problems including parental mental ill-health and learning needs. (Headteacher) There has also been an increase in families receiving social care support, and this has also resulted in a sharp increase in school exclusions. Governors reported: The profile we have had for very difficult families. They are from families facing multiple challenges or from those that don’t engage and won’t help with the support of the child means that the school cannot support the child adequately. For example, they didn’t want their child to be on the SEN list. I would say the percentage of exclusions affecting children from families facing multiple challenges is higher than average of those in the school population. (Chair of Governors) In addition, the evidence from the Social Metrics Commission (SMC 2020) suggests that BAME households in the UK are more than twice likely to live in poverty as their White counterparts and nearly half of the Black Caribbean households were in poverty, compared just under one in five White families. This evidence, of course, is hugely concerning and has implications for school exclusions. On this basis of this evidence, one could argue that the disproportionate over-representation of Black

Factors associated with rise in exclusions  25

Caribbean pupils in school exclusions may be also linked to the poverty factor.This is further supported by the IPPR (2017) research findings and headteachers’ and governors’ comments during the interview (Demie 2019a, ca; Demie and McLean 2017). Research by Cole et al. (2019) also suggest similar finding that poverty is an issue and there are now: More children in very challenging circumstances, we have seen a rise in a number of kids going into social care… more kids being referred to CAMHS. (2019:385)

Austerity and funding cuts School leaders and governors blame austerity and funding cuts for a sharp increase in exclusions in schools. Cuts have consequences. There is now evidence that the curriculum is narrowing, teaching assistants and teacher numbers are falling in schools because of the cuts and austerity.With cuts biting so hard, schools do not have enough money to pay specialist tutors to work with challenging pupils. It has contributed to rising in exclusion of children with challenging behaviours and SEN pupils. (Headteacher N) We are extremely concerned that this increase in exclusions is a result of the school funding crisis and cuts to local children’s services. (School Governor A) I hear from the staff at school that there is no one there to support the schools and families, because of budget cuts. (Chair of Governors R) Half of our teaching assistants (TAs) had been made redundant as a result of budget cut. (SENCo A) Some schools are reluctant to take SEN children on a roll because of staff cuts. (Governor D) As a result, schools budget cut individual support is now reduced in schools. Lack of enough funding has made it also more difficult to provide early intervention to prevent behavioural problems. At the same time, council support services for vulnerable families have been also cut back meaning that schools are having to pick up the pieces. (Governor F)

26  Introduction

Behaviour support teams and specialist staff such as speech and language therapists that used to be provided by local authorities were disappearing as a result of the cuts to funding for pupils with special education needs and disabilities. (Headteacher M) School leaders and governors are extremely concerned that the increase in exclusions is a result of the school funding crisis and cuts to local children’s services. There is no one there to support the schools and families, because of budget cuts. As a result, they argued schools have had to cut back on the individual support they are able to give students, making it more difficult to provide early intervention and prevent behavioural problems from escalating. Of greater concern is that local authority services, such as behaviour support teams and specialist staff such as speech and language therapists, were disappearing, alongside cuts to funding for pupils with special education needs and schools are having to pick up the pieces. We would argue that the issues that underpin exclusions reach far beyond the school gates. Schools can’t do it on their own. To avoid exclusions, they need support from the other local services around them. (Special Educational Needs Coordinators-SENCos) This support does not exist in many local authorities since the government introduced austerity measures (Demie 2019a). The England experience shows a worsening financial situation leading to service reductions and budget cuts in schools (Cole et al. 2019; JRF 2015) as result of the government austerity measure. The budget cut was severe and this also reflected in all people interviewed for this research. Many of the respondents argued that school cannot tackle issue of exclusion on their own; they need support from other local services beyond the school gates. Unfortunately, such services do not exist at present, and schools are forced by government policy to pick up the pieces for targeted support which local council used to provide. Overall, the data and research review suggests a sharp rise in exclusions and that Black Caribbean and Gypsy/Roma represent the most excluded groups of pupils in British schools (Demie 2019a; EHRC 2015; Parsons 2008). The review of literature also shows that there is consensus that pupils excluded from schools face a variety of negative risks, including poor educational attainment, prolonged periods out of employment; poor mental and physical health; involvement in crime; and homelessness (Df E 2019; IPPR 2017; Parsons 2008; Timpson 2019). It also suggests that there has been a worrying trend with the impact of austerity and budget cut upon schools and local authorities affecting schooling and learning. With increased poverty and budget cuts, there are now heavier demands of schools to support struggling families and the needs to make more complex interventions to support children at risk of exclusions.

Factors associated with rise in exclusions  27

Other reasons The interviewees were also asked:‘What are the reasons for exclusions from schools?’ which generated a wide debate with several causes being put forward, including poverty and cuts; limited English for some pupils, lack of resources and funding, and lack of capacity when health and safety issues were involved: It comes down to poverty and cuts. No middle-class children would be out of school for two years. We are losing our youngest generation of children in LA1. (SENCo, School E) Our parents come from other countries with limited English – they are struggling economically and the stress of getting through a day is enough. They wouldn’t know how to get a child back into school who had been out for two years. (Headteacher, School F) Nursery funding – we only have part-time places. (SENCo, School F) It is mainly due to lack of resources. (Headteacher, School F) When it becomes the case that we cannot manage the child, where safeguarding, health, and safety issues are involved when it is untenable. For us it is physical. With all the reasonable adjustments in the classroom, where there is physical contact with other children, health, and safety. We have a child in reception where we are having to educate him separately. There wasn’t a place for him anywhere. Every day the adults are amazing because he bites and kicks, but he cannot be with other children. We don’t have a library now because he is in there. He has autism and we quickly got a diagnosis, and he has an EHCP. Mainstream is not suitable for him. Fifteen schools were asked to take him, and none would. It is not fair to permanently exclude him because he is in the wrong setting. We have had to appoint a special person to support him, and he has a placement in September at a SEMH resource. (SENCo, School C)

Conclusions The conclusion from this chapter is that that the government has reduced state education in England to a quasi-market. Schools are judged on their national test and examination results which can result in a rise in exclusions. In addition,

28  Introduction

the fragmentation of the education system with the focus on school structures such as academies and free schools that are not accountable to local systems has resulted in a rise in pupil exclusions to ‘improve’ examination results. There is now a need for the government to develop targeted policies and strategies to address these issues. One of the challenges facing policymakers in England schools is how to tackle school exclusions. Drawing on data from interviews and focus group with governors, headteachers and parents, this chapter looked beyond official statistics and explored the reasons for growth in school exclusions. A number of reasons emerged from the data and the case study and case study evidence. The national data show a rise in permanent and fixed school exclusions by 41% and 35% respectively between 2012/13 and 2017/18 periods. The most recent data also highlight that the total number of permanent exclusions rose up from 4,630 in 2012/13 to 7,900 in 2017/18. The data also show that the number of fixed period exclusions has also increased, from 381,900 in 2016/17 to 410,800 in 2017/18 (Df E 2019). Overall analysis of the data confirms a sharp rise in exclusions in England schools. It also suggests that academies for all age groups have higher exclusion rates than local-authority-maintained schools and sponsored academies have exclusion rates twice as high as convertor academies in the secondary sector. The study also identified a number of reasons for rising exclusions in England schools, including factors such as the effect of the education market and league table, the fragmentation of the education system in England, and the rising numbers of children with complex needs, including child poverty and informal off-rolling.This evidence is further supported by governors’, teachers’, and headteachers’ interviews. It is clear from the governors’ focus group evidence that there is a sharp rise in school exclusions and the governors have extensive experience in school exclusions with a good knowledge of statutory responsibilities, including the reasons for exclusions and over-representation of Black Caribbean pupils. The findings of this study are similar to those of the previous research that looked into the reasons for rising school exclusions of pupils (see Demie 2019a, 2019b; Df E 2019; EHRC 2015; EPI 2019; House of Common Library 2018; IPPR 2017; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b; Parsons 2008;Timpson 2019).There is no doubt that with the above evidence exclusions of children from schools are on the increase.There is also now a consciousness among researchers that the rise in school exclusion is a result of mainly education market, the fragmentation of the education system, child poverty, and a worsening financial situation in England, leading to service reductions and strained budgets in schools (Andrews and Lawrence 2018; JRF 2015). The Joseph Rowntree Foundation evidence also shows that the cuts in England as a result of austerity were severe (JRF 2015). This is reflected in the interviewees’ accounts which show a sharp reduction in LA support that previously helped to avoid school exclusions. There is now strong evidence that the government made the financial assault on support for children at risk of exclusion. The people interview argued that school leaders were prioritising increasingly limited funding away from the inclusive practice. Schools were transferring costs for a challenging child to the

Factors associated with rise in exclusions  29

LA through exclusion, while the LA was sharply reducing funding for LA support services due to the cut at the LA level. The parent interviewed also highlighted that ‘academisation contributed to this and caused a breakdown of the system’ with an increase in school exclusions.

References Andrews, J., and Lawrence, T. (2018) School funding pressures in England. London: Education Policy Institute Ball, S. (1993) ‘Education markets, choice and social class:The market as a class strategy in the UK and the USA’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 14(1): 3–19. Cole, T., McCluskey, G., Daniels, H., Thompson, I., and Tawell, A. (2019) ‘Factors associated with high and low levels of school exclusions: comparing the English and wider UK experience’, Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 24(4): 374–390. Demie, F. (2019a) ‘The experience of Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F. (2019b) Exclusions of pupils from schools in England: Extent, causes and consequences: Research Project Brief. London: Lambeth School Research and Statistics Unit. https:// www.lambeth.gov.uk/rsu/sites/; www.lambeth.gov.uk.rsu/files/school_exclusions_in_ england_research_brief.pdf Demie, F., and McLean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean underachievement in schools in England. Lambeth, LA: Lambeth School Research and Statistics. Df E (2017) Exclusion from maintained schools, academies and pupil referral units in England: Statutory guidance for those with legal responsibilities in relation to exclusion. London: Department of Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-exclusion Df E (2019) Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England 2017–2018. London: Department for Education, 25 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixedperiod-exclusions-in-england-2017-to-2018; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/827876/Permanent_and_ fixed_period_exclusion_2017_to_2018_-_underlying_data.zip EHRC (2015) Is Britain fairer? The state of equality and human rights. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ is-britain-fairer-the-state-of-equality-and-human-rights-2015 EPI (2019) Unexplained pupil exits from schools: A growing problem? London: Education Policy Unit, April. https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EPI_Unexplained-pupilexits_2019.pdf Farouk, S. (2017) ‘My life as a pupil: The autobiographical memories of adolescents excluded from school’, Journal of Adolescence 55: 16–23. Gazeley, L., Marrable,T., Boddy, J., and Brown, C. (2015) ‘Contextualising inequalities in rates of school exclusion in English schools: Beneath the ‘tip of the ice-berg’, British Journal of Educational Studies 63 (4): 487–504. House of Common Library (2018) Off-rolling in English schools. London: House of Common Library brief, Number 08444, 10 December. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8444 IPPR (2017) Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ making-the-difference-report-october-2017.pdf Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2015) The cost of cuts:The impact on Local Government and poorer communities.York: JRF.

30  Introduction

Ofsted (2018a) Off-rolling: Using data to see a fuller picture, Blog Posted by: Jason Bradbury, June. https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/26/off-rolling-using-data-tosee-a-fuller-picture/ Ofsted (2018b) School inspection update: Special edition. https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742258/School_inspection_update_-_special_edition_September_2018.pdf Parsons, C. (2008) Race relations legislation, ethnicity and disproportionality in school exclusions in England. Cambridge: Cambridge Journal of Education 39 (3):401–419. Parsons, C. (2009) ‘Explaining sustained inequalities in ethnic minority school exclusions in England—passive racism in a neoliberal grip’, Oxford Review of Education 35 (2): 249–265. SMC (2020) Measuring poverty 2019. London: Social Metrics Commission. https://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Measuring-Poverty-2020-1.pdf Timpson, D. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf Weale, S. (2019) More than 49,000 pupils ‘disappeared’ from English schools – study. https:// www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/18/more-than-49000-pupils-disappearedfrom-schools-study

PART II

The experience of teachers, school staff and parents with school exclusions

3 TEACHERS’, SCHOOL STAFFS’, AND GOVERNORS’ EXPERIENCE WITH SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

This chapter will look into the views of teachers, school staff, and governors on school exclusion. There are a number of school staff that are dealing with excluded children and exclusion issues in schools. These include teachers, headteachers, governors, Special Educational Need Coordinators (SENCOs), and learning mentors. The section starts by reviewing existing literature followed by a discussion on the findings from our research on teachers and school leaders’ experience on school exclusion. We then move on to consider the views of SENCOs and governor in turn.

Teachers and school leaders’ experience with school exclusions In research and literature the experience of teachers and school leaders with school exclusions is well documented. There are a number of research papers in England, the United States, and Europe that looked into teachers and school perspectives in school exclusions (See Coram 2019; Gordon 2001; House of Common Library 2018; Joseph 2020; McCluskey 2008; Munn and Johnstone 1992; Ritter 1989; Timpson 2019;Wright et al. 2008). In the course of the 1990s and 2000s, many education systems in the developed world reported an increase in the number of pupils presenting emotional and behavioural problems and an increase in exclusions which has implications for teachers, school staff, and school leaders. Lawrence, Steed, and Young (1984) were describing how most European countries were experiencing a rising tide of disruption in their schools while a number of American writers (Dean 1995; Miller 1996, 1994) signalled concerns about widespread problems in schools across North America. Increasing disruptive behaviour in classroom is a common problem confronted by policymakers throughout the world. There are interesting policy responses to tackle the problems. For example, England has tried to tackle through legislation, guidance, and different initiatives and strategies to help teachers DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-5

34  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

to deal with this issue. However, despite introducing legislation and recent extensive guidance (Timpson 2019), there is no conclusive evidence that the problem of disruptive behaviour has been successfully addressed. Recent concerns expressed by the Chief Inspector of Schools have suggested that ‘there may well be indications that in secondary schools there are alarming signs of disruptive behaviour.’ From the perspective of policymakers in England and elsewhere, this suggests that teachers will have to become accustomed to dealing with a level of behaviour problems they have not previously experienced. There is no doubt evidence from the UK research confirms that teachers are facing a deteriorating situation in which they are reporting a greater incidence of behavioural problems compared to the past (Demie 2019). Teachers reporting the high incidence of relatively lowlevel disruptions within the classroom have been well documented (Demie 2019). From Demie’s (2019) research, we can confirm that England teachers are no more immune from these problems than their colleagues elsewhere in Europe or the United States. The challenge for English policymakers in this situation is to achieve a balance between supporting teachers in their quest for more effective means of controlling disruptive behaviour while, at the same time, ensuring that the needs of those with emotional problems are not overlooked (Demie 2019; Timpson’s 2019). Joseph (2020) also examined racially disproportionality in school exclusions in England from parent and school staff perspectives. The findings indicate that pressurized school environments and racial bias have hindered how education social workers and pastoral carer workers advocated for students at risk of school exclusion. The study argued that in the performance-driven schools of the study participants, this created a pressurized environment for teachers and hyper-marginality of low-performing students and BME students, leading to a greater risk of exclusion. Participants described how underperforming students were often pushed out of schools, while teaching and pastoral care staff risked the loss of monetary incentives or their employment if they challenged unethical practices. In this respect, the school leaders, teachers, and learning/mentors who were interviewed also shared their experience in school exclusions with reference to off-rolling, the transition from primary to secondary school experience, home environment, initial teacher training and inclusion, identity issues, family structures and experience with supporting excluded children beyond the school gate. The key findings of the experience reported with school exclusions are discussed below:

Off-rolling The research review above highlighted off-rolling in English schools as one of the reasons for unofficial exclusions and the rise in school exclusions. Increasing numbers of children in England are being ‘off-rolled’ to ‘game’ the school performance system (Demie 2019; House of Common Library 2018; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b; see Figure 3). In particular, the pressure on schools to deliver results in terms of GCSE and A-Levels gave rise to Ofsted reporting in 2016 on a growing trend of schools

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  35

‘off-rolling’ pupils in Year 10. Accordingly, Ofsted (2018a, 2018b) reported over 19,000 pupils did not progress from Year 10 to Year 11 in the same state-funded secondary school.They argued that many pupils moved to another state-funded school but around half did not reappear in the census of a different school. Unsurprisingly, not all children are equally likely to be affected. Children with SEND, those eligible for free school meals, looked-after children, and some minority ethnic groups were all more likely to leave their school. For example, over 30% of pupils who left their school between Year 10 and Year 11 had to SEND against 13% of all pupils. Ofsted noted that: The incidence of this possible off-rolling is not evenly spread across the sector. A higher proportion of schools in London are seeing the movement of pupils compared to other areas of the country with Academies to be losing proportionately more pupils than local authority schools. (Ofsted: ‘Off-rolling: using data to see a fuller picture’ Jason Bradbury 2016) The key questions here are: Are these differences due to the context of the schools and the types of pupils they cater to? Or is it the policies of particular schools? In all of this, the real scandal is the number of children being forced out of mainstream education altogether by a system that judges success purely on the basis of exam results. Once they are out of mainstream education their chances of success collapse. In one of our interviews, we spoke with a former primary school teacher who now teaches in a special school, and he revealed that ‘off-rolling’ has been going on for many years: As soon as academies came in, I could see that parents liked the idea of their children going to these schools but then their children are thrown out within a few weeks. They have been off-rolling for years. One example is when pupils come into Year 7, they say whoever irritates us we put them in one place together and when Ofsted comes in it looks like they are a difficult cohort. I cannot believe people think it is a new issue. It’s been happening for years. Pupils are slipping through the net.This is how schools in difficult areas get too ‘outstanding’ in inspections. When I saw off-rolling come up I thought ‘thank goodness.’ Whatever happened to kindness and support? People in secondary schools in pastoral care have been cut because their work wasn’t valued. (Teacher, Special School E) It is clear from the comments of the teachers that children are thrown out particularly from academy schools to improve GCSE results and improve Ofsted inspections. Off-rolling is only one piece of the picture. Data reveal that the majority of pupils experiencing fixed period or permanent exclusions at any stage of their schooling have social, emotional, and mental health issues (SEMH).While in primary schools, they tend to be well supported because their backgrounds are understood

36  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

and considered, but all too often their underlying SEND are left undiagnosed, making them vulnerable to the very different demands of secondary schools.

The transition from primary to secondary school experience We interviewed school senior leaders, teachers, and learning/mentors to seek their experiences of school exclusion and for their views on the causes and consequences. Senior leaders expressed their concerns with the system as it stands with regard to the admission of pupils in Year 7. Whereas they had previously received a balance of ability among pupils, over the last couple of years there was a noticeable increase in the number of pupils transferring from primary schools with undiagnosed SEND. A pupil has been in the primary school for 6/7 years and the needs of those children have not been picked up. When they arrive at secondary school, you quickly see these children cannot manage it. When we say the needs of the child the school cannot meet them, a PRU most of the time is not the place for a child.They may not be behavioural needs.There seems to be an increase in the number of pupils with undiagnosed needs. (Head of Year 11, School R) The differences in expectations of pupils that exist between primary and secondary school and the level of support vulnerable pupils need became apparent in our interview with the headteacher of a primary school who observed: Those who are excluded tend to be boys with strong characters. In primary schools, they have adults with them who put a lot of time in with them. We tell them when they go to secondary it won’t be like this. We give secondaries lots of information on the children but those that have done well with us find themselves thrown out. Three boys I taught in the infants came back and told us they’d been thrown out of secondary school – they were all black boys! It has become like the American system here, but it doesn’t work – all that ‘one strike and you are out! You try to prepare them for the dangers out there when they transfer to a larger secondary school but sometimes this is difficult for children with SEND to understand. One autistic child told me that he had been told a gang member would get him; they cannot always grasp what you mean. (Headteacher School F) The increase in the use of social media by students and parents over the last two or three years is bringing additional challenges to secondary schools in terms of the different expectations of behaviour and with communication with parents, as described by two deputy headteachers: Over the last couple of years, there has been a problem with Year 7 girls and social media. They have been used to setting up WhatsApp groups and it

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  37

becomes a real problem when somebody is removed. We treat this very seriously. We feed this back to primary schools if we get an understanding that this has happened there. In primary schools, parents have knowledge of who their children are friends with, but at secondary they don’t know. We get support from parents who support this stance but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will happen. This can lead to problems re exclusions. We make our expectations clear, especially with regards to pupils going home straight from school and not loitering. Perhaps one of the things we need to explore is that some children don’t want to go home. (Deputy Headteacher A, School R) Since January the Principal has had to spend a significant amount of time on parents who do not want to abide by the school rules. (Deputy Headteacher B, School R) Our parents come into school and expect to be seen immediately. We have had to introduce a system because parents will say I want to see the Headteacher, or a leader and I want to see them now and I am not leaving until I see them. We have set up a system where we get them to fill out a form stating what the issue is. There is also an issue with email correspondence. They will say ‘I sent you an email ten minutes ago and you haven’t answered it yet!’ We are trying to run a school here. The pressure it puts on us in school is enormous. (Deputy Headteacher B, School R) They will then send a complaint to everyone, MPs, Councillors, Head of Ofsted! (Deputy Headteacher B, School R) One thing to start with is the importance of induction and integration into secondary school. When pupils start, they will have visited us three or four times. The leadership team meets with all Year 7 parents. (Deputy Headteacher A, School R) I think there is a correlation between parents who do not come to those opportunities; it’s a pattern, there may be issues in the future. (Deputy Headteacher B, School R) Parents of 21st-century children we are seeing now – they were probably at school themselves 15 years ago – they are getting younger and younger. (Deputy Headteacher B, School R) Younger parents appear to be more on the defensive, and one of the challenges the school faces with a few families is verbal abuse, as a deputy head explains:

38  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

It is very hard to work with some parents who are determined that their views will take place. One of the challenges for us is that we are almost trying to build the world around the child while we are taking the hit with verbal abuse from the parents. While you do not exclude for parents’ behaviour, the impact that the parents have in supporting their children in pushing the boundaries is significant. (Deputy Headteacher A, School R) Parents are not always supportive of the efforts that the school makes in seeking information about their children who are transferring from primary schools, as the following account illustrated: I can think of a pupil in Year 8 whose father was annoyed to see we met with the Year 6 teacher and the member of staff thought it would be helpful that she should have a mentor. That particular father was upset with us because he couldn’t understand why. We gave him all the notes from the primary school, and it showed that she was a child who had been excluded and sent to a partner school. I think there was a lot of denials. (Deputy Headteacher C, School R) In one school, the child’s mother was a TA in the same federation, which influenced how it was dealt with. Also, at primary school, her mother was a TA in the federation and there was a conflict of interest, so they were cautious. This disruptive behaviour was contained up to Year 8, but it has now catapulted the family into Social Care. (Centre Manager, School R) We could foresee this happening, as a result of the severity of the issue within the family home.We will make referrals based on our observations and go out of our way to do that, but the family has to be able to say, ‘yes’ to this. (Deputy Headteacher C, School R) It emerged after many meetings with the parents that the child’s father had needs as well and he was very resistant perhaps because he had a poor experience at school himself, according to the manager of the school’s internal referral centre who believed that many other parents haven’t had a good experience at school either: Many were in PRUs and are bringing that anger into school. They feel they can get back at the school. It’s a shame because it fuels what isn’t there. (Deputy Headteacher A, School R)

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  39

We try to work within the context of the child. We now have a school-based social worker and part of the reason for having this is because the LA had data which showed that we have made the most referrals to multi-agencies in LA1. We try to piece together the fragmented world of students whilst at the same time we are facing cuts to our budget. It is always important for us to build that picture, when a child comes to us from primary school; we meet with families before they come in. They are interviewed by senior managers and staff contact primary schools before they come to get further information. We insist on staff reading primary school files, often finding gaps in terms of information. (Deputy Headteacher C, School R) We are open with parents. If a child is excluded, their life chances have been cut by ¾. So, these are the options which are available. At that stage the parents would have been in many meetings, they would have seen behaviour logs, been involved with us for years. If we say permanent exclusion is likely, this is what you can do as a parent, what you need to do, and explain their rights legally. (Head of Year 11, School R)

Home environment Over the years, research has reported noteworthy associations between low income and psychiatric disorders, social and academic functioning, and chronic physical health problems. For example, Ferguson et al. (2007) researched educational outcomes. They argue that a child’s home has a particularly strong impact on school readiness. Their findings also confirm that children from low-income families often do not learn the social skills required to prepare them for school. There is also a problem with parental inconsistency, lack of supervision, and poor role modelling, parents’ lack of support (see Ferguson et al. 2007). Other researchers also highlighted how educational outcome is one of the key factors that influence family income in their lifetime (see Demie and McLean 2017). Similarly, a deputy head has observed the gap widening between the more affluent families and those from poor backgrounds in his school with regard to social and cultural capacity: I think our Year 7 and 8 has the biggest gap I have seen between the cultural capacity of the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. At the top, you have got those who throw themselves into everything the school can offer and at the other end, you have very poor families. For us as a school that split has got wider and wider – the gap is bigger. (Deputy Headteacher A, School R) Parents are at work, and they do not communicate with their children.

40  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

These parents cannot afford to pay for extra help when they are working five or six jobs. Black Caribbean pupils have to go home and look after their brothers and sisters and feed them. Their backgrounds compared with other children are a world apart. (Head of Year 11) Our parents come from other countries with limited English – they are struggling economically and the stress of getting through a day is enough. They wouldn’t know how to get a child back into school who had been out for two years. (Primary Headteacher, School F) Often parents seek schools’ help in disciplining their children, especially those without extended families to support them in this: Sometimes parents need reinforcement – parents may want to get their children off their telephone. They will ring me for advice. I tell them just give them a basic phone. Sometimes parents do not feel empowered to discipline their children – it is a problem. Sometimes parents don’t want to work with services as they believe they are too intrusive. Sometimes I have had to challenge Social Services in meetings because of their attitude towards parents. (Referral Centre Manager, School D) We have a number of families here alone … but in the last couple of years when we have meetings it is so interesting to see the additional involvement of grandparents who come into the meetings with the parent in terms of their roles in supporting the family. There’s an increased need as they are involved. One of the reasons for taking a child back to Nigeria is because their family is there, whether it’s wisdom, experience or status. (Deputy Headteacher C, School R)

Lack of specialist initial teacher training A school’s willingness to persist in trying to provide every opportunity for students and families to work with them to overcome difficulties can be hard on class teachers who are at the coal face as the following example illustrates: We have another boy in Year 8 whose persistent disruptive behaviour in the school should have led to a permanent exclusion by now. This is hard on the average class teacher while myself and the Centre Manager are trying to work with the context. I have tried to get help for the father who has EAL and the mother who has mental health issues, trying to get them housing.We know all this and are trying to work with the family, but it’s understanding and identifying what the issues are and the determination to get it sorted! (Deputy Headteacher, School Z)

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  41

One of the key issues that arose in all our interviews was the need for initial teacher training courses to include more on identifying and supporting children with SEND and for teachers to be more adequately prepared for teaching BAME pupils. This need was identified by the Runnymede Trust in 2010 who noted that a significant number of newly trained teachers have reported that their training does not well prepare them for teaching pupils of different ethnic backgrounds where diversity is critical.They argue there is a need for improved teacher training on this issue which should improve outcomes of children in schools. The headteacher also raised this issue during the interview stating that: We have had new teachers here who are very good, but they are not from Brixton. I hear in conversations they probably think the ‘Top Boy’ drama series is real. (Headteacher)

There is a need for specialist training in SEND in Initial Teaching Training if you want inclusion. (Headteacher)

Identity On the question of why there were so many Black Caribbean pupils excluded from mainstream primary and secondary schools, it was proposed that it was because these pupils do not know their own history and struggle with their identity: The problem is history and how it is taught. Why are you not aware of your history? Where is your story? How can you continue to move forward if you don’t know about yourself ? This is not being addressed. (Learning Mentor, School R) I see lots of identity issues with pupils of Black African and Black Caribbean heritage. I was born in Portugal, my parents are from Africa, and I really struggled with my identity. (Learning Mentor, A, School R) This view was echoed by the Referral Centre Manager: It’s all of them involved, unfortunately, children of the Black Caribbean and Asian heritages are not being given pride in their history, so their identity is lost. (Referral Centre Manager, School R)

42  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

Family structures Another difficulty expressed was the complexity of relationships which are a feature of the Black Caribbean community, which result in children moving between family members when conflict or difficulties arise: In one everyone is related to everyone else. There is so much conflict within the family and the community and they bring that into school. They are all related somehow. It is hard to find these children because they are not in a stable situation. They live with an aunty and there is a problem, so they are moved to another… they constantly move because of their circumstances. You cannot find them because they are always moving from various relatives. This is another barrier to their achievement. (Learning Mentor, School B) The absence of a father and boys being brought up by single mothers was another factor that was stressed repeatedly by school staff during our interviews as a reason why boys are having difficulties with discipline: The majority of the project work we do is with single-parent households with no father present … we seek out those errant fathers. We ask mothers if we can contact the father, especially if there’s been a gap, or they have shown no interest in the children. We encourage them to be involved. I telephone the father as well as the mother to tell them what is going on at school. They are growing up in a predominantly female household. Mothers tend to nag a lot, whereas dads use a few words. They hear the message once from their dad and they tend to adhere to that message but when they hear it from their mum a hundred times, they ignore it. (Teacher, School D) A behaviour mentor in the same school gave his observations about issues related to single-parent families and the absence of fathers within the Black Caribbean community: ‘49% of families are led by women. This has a massive effect on our boys. I work with hundreds of pupils each day. The boys and girls have a particular bond with you as a man. The most predominant question is ‘what do you think’? I try to give them the best opinion I can.The average pupil goes home, he doesn’t eat with his family, and he eats alone. They are latch-key kids. This has been brought about by Black Caribbean culture. If the family foundation is not solid you have lots of problems. … He continues: ‘On Saturdays, I go and work with kids. Their parents have lots of problems, mental health, poverty, low paid jobs.The kids get no guidance.They all have mobile phones and are looking at all the wrong things. We tell them 1: Attitude – we don’t want

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  43

any street in here. 2: Correct behaviour – men and women behave differently. 3: Character of the people is important, what the women bring is nurturing – men bring in discipline. 4: Working together.’ (Behaviour Mentor, School E) Pupils see me as more than a coach. They see me as a father because I am strict. They know they can speak to me about anything. (Learning Mentor, A) Often discipline and structure are at school but not at home. They may react to it in the wrong way but in fact, it’s taught them something.They are learning from what’s in place. Sometimes they say ‘Sir, will you put me on the report’? Even though I haven’t seen any negative behaviour from them. They want us watching over them. (Learning Mentor B, School R) There are a number of factors in terms of the dynamics at home, single parents trying to raise boys. At 13 or 14 they need a father figure. (Learning Mentor B, School D) We suggested that family connections like this exist in Caribbean countries also, so why is it a problem here? The learning mentor responded: There is more disconnect here because they do not have the support systems. There are also other issues around housing and poverty. What is expected here is very different compared with the Caribbean – there are different expectations. (Learning Mentor, School R) A headteacher described the devastating effects of a boy whose father was in prison: Some of our parents are in prison. I am now so used to it. I have one child at the moment that gets into a bit of trouble. He is so difficult I don’t know what to do with him. His dad is in prison for three years. When we met dad, he was lovely, so of course, the child is upset because he hasn’t seen his father and won’t be seeing him for another three years. (Headteacher, School A) Another headteacher, who is also a governor, gave a school’s perspective on exclusion: You always felt guilty after you excluded a Black Caribbean child. But you have a behaviour policy, and you have to follow it.You have to ask why this is happening to a particular child, so you unpick the behaviour. Sometimes the

44  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

parents do not have enough influence to want to work with you. Sometimes the child’s attitude has developed to such an extent that it’s almost impossible to change. This happens early. (Headteacher, School Z) Primary headteachers described some of the support systems they put in place to reduce exclusions, but that all seemed to unravel when pupils moved to secondary. There are so many issues. Pupils with EHCPs do not last in secondary schools; they seem to be out on their ear very quickly. (Headteacher, School F) It tends to be boys with strong characters. In primary schools, they have adults with them who put a lot of time in with them.We tell them when they go to secondary it won’t be like this. We give secondary schools lots of information on the children and those that have done well with us find themselves thrown out. Three boys I taught in the infants came back and told us they’d been thrown out of secondary school – they were all black boys! It has become like the American system here, but it doesn’t work – all that one strike and you are out! You try to prepare them for the dangers out there when they transfer to a larger secondary school but sometimes this is difficult for children with SEND to understand. One autistic child told me that he had been told a gang member would get them; they cannot always grasp what you mean. (Headteacher, School F) We used to have people in school that did the mentoring. One of the positions we are now creating is somebody who has been working as a children’s centre manager and she has spent many years making good relationships with all the families, going to hospital appointments with them and so on.We have so many families struggling in bed and breakfasts, foodbanks and have been living like this for years. Our children’s centre was like heaven to them. Now they want to put one manager over the three children’s centres in the area. She really likes the fact that she knows all the families in our area, so we would like to recruit her to work with parents. We used to have a lot of people in that capacity, and they have all been cut. (Headteacher, School F)

Experience with supporting excluded children beyond the school gate As part of gaining the views of school-related staff, we also asked the school exclusion experience of a one-to-one tutor who works with excluded children, on what happens to excluded children that the school will no longer be able to support. The tutor is well experienced and a former deputy principal of a secondary school.

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  45

He supports excluded children in maths and English and pointed out during the one-to-one interview that: Most of my work is 1:1 for pupils who have been excluded from school.They are excluded because schools are unable to support them. All of this goes through the agency I work for. A lot of the children seem to be connected with Virtual Schools. I have got 21 hours per week which is about six pupils. Four have been excluded from school, one is LAC. It is not straightforward because some of the pupils are LAC and they have been excluded from secondary schools. I have a Somali child and he is in a Home. Another is a Muslim refugee. They don’t know if and when they will go back. I can see they will have problems fitting in if they go back. One of the girls says she cannot go back because she wouldn’t be allowed in any mainstream school. They never mention why they have been excluded. (Former Deputy Principal and Tutor of excluded children) We asked the tutor a question: ‘Why are the schools not providing this sort of 1:1 support themselves?’ He commented: There is no gallery to play to in this kind of tuition. I don’t think they could provide this kind of support in school. I have pupils who have been thrown out of PRUs. It seems that this is the bottom rung that they get 1:1 tuition. The interesting thing is the 1:1 is probably the best they can get. As a tutor you just see things. (Former Deputy Principal and Tutor of excluded children)

Special educational needs coordinators’ experience with school exclusions The SEND Code of Practice (Df E 2015) requires governing bodies of academies and maintained mainstream schools to ensure that there be a qualified teacher designated as a Special Educational Needs (SEN) Coordinator (SENCO) for the school. SENCOs have responsibilities and the SEN code of practice to oversee the day-today operation of the school’s SEND policy. Key roles include: • • • • •

Supporting the identification of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Co-ordinating provision for children with SEND. Liaising with parents of children with SEND. Liaising with other providers, outside agencies, educational psychologists, and external agencies. Updating school record of all pupils with SEND.

46  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

The review of the data has already established that SEND pupils are disproportionately affected by exclusion, so gathering the views of SENCOs is crucial to understanding the reasons for excluding pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. We asked the SENCOs that comprised school head of inclusion, teachers, deputy heads, and headteachers the same question: what is your experience of school exclusion? The main findings are summarised below: In one secondary school, the SENCO described how someone was excluded because of social, emotional, and mental health issues: In my three years at my school, we have been trying to put more in place before excluding. Someone was permanently excluded because she punched and kicked someone. To be honest, yes, they are black, but they have social, emotional, and mental health issues. Definitely a root cause of a lot of these difficulties. These children cannot handle their emotions because of things going on at home. (SENCo, School A) The school support uses a special unit and the impact on secondary schools of isolation is variable. Some pupils say ‘never again’ but the girl who was excluded yesterday was there many times. She’s had pastoral support, mentoring didn’t work. From September we are expanding our ‘well-being.’ (SENCo, School A) We noted the effects of pressure. For the younger children, it is the home. At secondary, the pressure of GCSEs adds to that. (SENCo, School A) In a primary school B, it was mainly behaviour issues that led to exclusions. In our school, it is mainly behaviour issues. However, in primary schools, we have elaborated pastoral care before it comes to exclusion but when they go to secondary, they go from person to person. Some struggle because of this. In my experience in two schools, the very strong ethos was and is to do everything not to exclude. Both headteachers made it clear this wasn’t an option. In my current school, we have a child at risk of exclusion because of behaviour, and the headteacher put in place 1:1 support, play therapy, music therapy, and counselling.We still have two learning mentors.We try all these to start with and if we see a child at risk of exclusion because of behaviour, it’s usually always this; we put a behaviour support plan in place then a description of triggers, what to do if a child shows types of behaviour. We meet with parents fortnightly. This is shared with the family and the child and consequences, and rewards are explained. There are certain rules for fixed-term exclusions which are violence towards a child or adult. At my present school, we don’t do internal exclusion

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  47

as much as in my previous school. In general, I think internal exclusion works more than external. A child would go to another year group with 1:1 support; or sometimes in the headteacher’s office doing their work. I prefer fixed term exclusion to avoid permanent exclusion. (SENCo Inclusion manager, School B) We had a child with an EHCP and social services involvement with the family for alcohol, drugs, neglect – this child had lots going on. He was diagnosed with ADHD, ASD, and SEMH issues. His behaviour was so bad it couldn’t be managed. Dangerous things like climbing on top of the cupboard and spitting on people, lashing out, running out of the building. At his annual review, we said we couldn’t meet his needs and he needed a special school. This is very difficult. He ended up in a special school as there were no places available here. It took us to say if you don’t find him a place (and it took us a year to do) we will put the exclusion papers forward. We couldn’t manage the child’s needs. Social Services have been involved for all three partners. There are nine half-siblings and mum is pregnant again. It’s a very complex story.The fourteen-year-old was excluded from a special school and he has been diagnosed with psychosis. Mum’s relationship is fine with me, but she gets angry quickly and swears, she does want to help them but doesn’t know-how. It’s a White British child. We avoided exclusion due to transfer. The transition was very difficult because he was kicked off the bus for his behaviour and for racist abuse and he has a taxi to school paid for by LA. We have his siblings at school, and they are doing better – three of them. They are low achievers with behavioural issues but not to the point of being excluded. (SENCo Inclusion manager, School B) We use the primary PRU for outreach support, but the PRU has stopped its outreach. They are experts on behaviour. They assess the child and we had very good support from them. In Reception, a child was transferred for six weeks and six months back. They came to see if things were OK. They said they didn’t see any issues there. Slowly she was reintegrated into Year 2. There are still issues with behaviour, she had a diagnosis of ADHD, and Social Services are involved. It’s a single mother. (SENCo Inclusion manager, School B) School C had no exclusions in the past, but had its first permanent exclusion last year as described by the SENCO, a teacher: In the past, we have had none, but we had our first permanent exclusion last year and it was very stressful.The child came to use in Year 3 or Year 4, and he didn’t have a diagnosis of ADHD, but this wasn’t the reason for the exclusion. Mum took us to a tribunal. It was a safeguarding issue. It was a pretty horrible experience. He was in Year 6. He found school very tough. The thing

48  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

that helped us was the relationship with his mum; when she backed us up and vice-versa but when the relationship broke down it didn’t help. By the time he was excluded though the relationship was good. Before exclusion, all the support has been put in place. Primary schools are very good at working with parents irrespective of whether they have had an EHCP. With the primary set-up, we are able to cope a bit more. (SENCo, School C) We had an inclusion manager for four days per week and I did three days as SENCo. Now there is only me working four days. Our school is very inclusive. Children who we have had from Reception to Year 6 it is very rare for them to be permanently excluded; only two pupils to my knowledge over 17 years. (SENCo, School F) We now have up to 12 children with ASD and 8/9 in Reception and KS1 and a lot of them have come quite recently without a diagnosis. We have tried to get one child sent to a special school, he has an EHCP, and his family agrees. We can’t understand why they cannot find him a place – what is getting in the way? In Year 1 he was promised a special school and at the last minute the family moved, and the papers got lost in the SEN department. He was offered a school out-borough. In March they revoked this and said the school wasn’t opening. I phoned the school and they said they were opening. It went to Panel, and they told me at the Panel ‘the suggestion is … (The school) update their records and do an annual review! (SENCo, School F) It is interesting to note from the above quotations that the SENCOs’ experience with school exclusions clearly identifies a number of factors for SEN children’s exclusions, including behaviour issues, problems with the parents at home, lack place for special education children elsewhere, and issues with social services support. Some SENCOs expressed frustration regarding the lack of resources and professional knowledge, which impede their abilities to understand and meet needs appropriately.They also cited difficulties with engaging support from social workers and external agencies such as educational psychologist and sometimes from parents. In the view of SENCOs, parents of special needs children face challenges, and they have difficulties supporting their children because of mental health of issues. SENCOs also reported that the SEN pupils that are excluded have experience of a range of emotions across the time of the implementation of exclusions and the child excluded feeling rejected, annoyed and they have been treated unfairly. SENCOs also had experience working with children with an EHCP and social services involvement with the family for alcohol, drugs, and neglect. Some of the SEN children that are excluded are diagnosed with ADHD, ASD, and SEMH issues. Some of the parents may also feel helpless or powerless in the response to the exclusions

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  49

being justified and they are frustrated in the views of SENCOs that the schools are not meeting their needs and they may not listen to their concerns. This could lead to further stress on the parents and pupils. The quotations above also highlighted the difficulties SENCOs face after and during exclusions process. The Df E code of practice (Df E 2015) clearly states that SENCOs are responsible for monitoring and providing support systems, including early intervention to reduce exclusions. It also states that early interventions and multi-agency assessment should be used to understand the causes of disruptive behaviour. It is the job of SENCOs to monitor and identify if the issues identified for exclusions are linked to SEN, mental health issues, or family problems. As reported above by respondents interviewed SEN children are sometimes excluded for the breach of the school’s rigid behavioural policy that does not recognise the needs of SEN children and lack of enough funding to support children in schools. This is also confirmed by SENCOs in School D who highlighted that There is a shortage of funding and experienced SENCos, teaching assistants and teachers to work with excluded or children risked being excluded, while often being expected to teach well. (SENCos, School D) SENCos have no time to monitor and observe pupils, challenge and support teaching staff as well as fill the paperwork and conduct the annual review as expected in SEN code of practice for SEN children. (SENCos, School D) This is further supported by evidence from other research which reported that support from external professionals to support children at risk of exclusions in schools has been hard to engage due to austerity cuts and school finance issues (Demie 2019; Demie and McLean 2017; Middleton and Kay 2020; Timpson 2019). As a result, SEN children are excluded before they receive the support they need. There is evidence from the interviews that SENCOs are facing challenging experiences in meeting their statutory responsibilities in co-ordinating provision for children with SEND, liaising with parents of children, liaising with other providers and external agencies, and updating school record of all pupils with SEND under the SEN code of practice (Df E 2015). Overall, the experience of SENCOs in school exclusions confirms that all are facing a challenging time in the English school systems.

School governors’ experience with exclusions In this section, we will discuss the findings from our research about governors’ experience of school exclusion. It is important to note as introduction that the role of the governing board is to provide strong strategic leadership to a school, ensuring accountability for its educational and financial performance. School governing bodies play an important

50  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

part in determining the overall policy of the schools and supporting and challenging headteachers by gathering views, asking questions, and discussing what’s best for the school. More importantly, they are accountable to parents, the local community, and the Local Authority in making decisions on pupil exclusions as a member of the exclusions panel or disciplinary committee.Their role is to act as another ‘set of eyes to review the headteacher’s decision to exclude a pupil permanently or for a fixed term and decide whether to direct reinstatement where that is a practical option. Governors need to decide whether they agree with the headteacher’s decision to permanently exclude the child’. Key evidence reported about exclusions during the governors’ focus group from the three Chairs of Governors suggests that there are little or no exclusions in their schools. As a governor, I cannot remember the last time we had a permanent exclusion. We do have a termly report of exclusions since the last governing body meeting. Usually, there may have been a fixed-term exclusion of one or two days. As a clerk to another school’s governing body, it is similar. (Chair of Governors M) Another governor also reported a similar experience: Our primary school rarely excludes anybody, even for a day. It was four years ago that we were excluded for a day. That isn’t to say we don’t have challenging children. The governing body feels that at primary school if it can be avoided, we bring in the PRUs to work with teachers or children. (Chair of Governors F) I haven’t had a lot of exclusion panels, but I have gone to the briefings over the last two years, so I am saying my experience is of prevention of exclusion and what that entails. We have a report every Safeguarding and Equalities Committee meeting and they could be looked at in detail, in a governing body they could be lost. (Chair of Governors F) One of the reasons for the few exclusions reported by governors is the clear behaviour policy which the school has developed: At school, there is a strict behaviour policy, so we do not get a lot of exclusions. We are a single-sex school so there is a different dynamic – a more caring school. We have a retreat room, and we try a number of strategies to contain pupils. The governing body receives data from the school which has helped to put support and intervention strategies for the child to reduce exclusions. (Chair of Governors K)

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  51

The headteacher would always look to do a managed move and if that fails and we try very hard, it comes to the governing body – a three governors’ panel. I am conscious that there are parents with EAL that are presented with paperwork that is not easy to understand so last time we had someone translate into English from Spanish. The school does an awful lot to try and stop an exclusion from happening, but when it gets to the point of exclusion, parents do not necessarily understand. Parents do not like PRUs and do not want the children to go there. (Chair of Governors K) Governors also reported some of the actions they take and consider when it comes before the governing body: If someone comes before the governing body, we want to know how the child has not followed the policy. I sometimes think that is a difficult one. By the time we see them, the school has tried everything possible to try to prevent this from happening. There is a lot of pressure on governors to do what the headteacher wants.You have also got to think about the other children in the class and the staff. (Chair of Governors K) Violence of the child, there is very little that anyone could do. Normally it’s after a shock of a couple of days of exclusion, that the parents understand what is happening. I am not sure that they fully understand how difficult the children can be at school from home. It’s a difference in expectations. (Chair of Governors T) The governors in the focus group also reported experiences with families facing multiple challenges. We asked the governors about their experiences with challenging families that have been on social care support for a long time. A governor in School T reported that: Yes, most of the challenging children have come from families facing multiple challenges for all sorts of reasons. We are a small primary school. The SENCo will work with parents on their child’s needs in various ways. Some of the difficulties families don’t engage. They won’t help their child and they didn’t also want their child to be on the SEN list for additional support. (Chair of Governors T) This is also agreed with by the Chair of Governors in School M, who argued that: Most of the issues that cause the children to ‘act out’ come out at secondary. I would say the percentage of exclusions affecting children from so-called families facing multiple challenges is higher than average than those in the school population. (Chair of Governors M)

52  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

Governors believe that the effective use of data to track pupils is critical for governors to monitor exclusions and challenge headteachers to ensure equality of opportunities is addressed and are well supported.They also share the data about the child with parents and noted that: Parents’ understanding of the school system can be very difficult if they were not in our school system themselves. (Chair of Governors K) Interpreting data allows parents to see the problem. Sitting down together enables you to be more advice on how you can move forward. (Chair of Governors T) During the interview, we also noted that the governors are concerned about the budget cuts and their implications on staffing and school exclusions. They argued that this may lead to exclusions in some schools because of a lack of support for a child at the school level: I hear from the staff at school that there is no one there to support the schools and families, because of budget cuts. We last year took a lot of children from managed moves, and we were called up to see … to explain because we are being judged because our results were not as high as previously. (Chair of Governors K) Another governor also argued about the budget cut stating that: Once the parents and children understand the culture of the school, if they become autonomous, all those things do not matter, then they are ready to learn. My worry is that because of budget cuts we may not be able to have our ‘playground champions’ who represent a male figure that the child may not have at home and an ethnic profile. (Chair of Governors T) Governors are also concerned about the problem of not having a diversified governing body in schools, which they believe is useful to address exclusions. There are little or no ethnic minority governors in the schools. It’s generally career people in Lambeth who are in the civil service that just want it on their CV. (Chair of Governors K) We do not have black governors. We had at one point three black governors but when they stepped down, we haven’t been able to find others. (Chair of Governors M)

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  53

We have tried ‘associate governors’ but it is still important. (Chair of Governors T) As part of the interview, we also asked the governors about their experiences with off-rolling: ‘What are your views on off-rolling pupils?’ They pointed out they have never had an experience with off-rolling in their schools. However, they noted that off-rolling has now become a national concern as some secondary academies have excluded improving their GCSE results. They summarised their concern about offrolling with a few words: You do the best for the child. (Chair of Governors K) Unacceptable. (Chair of Governors M) Unacceptable. (Chair of Governors T) Off-rolling is the single most destructive aspect of academies. (Chair of Governors T) It comes back to how we use the data and how the child can get lost in the process. Sometimes it’s necessary to discount a child when it comes to SATs and this is acceptable say if they have just arrived in the country, or where they have come from another school where they couldn’t support them. (Chair of Governors K) It’s typical of politicians who make a decision but don’t understand how it will affect people down the line. There are so many restrictions and so many policies. It is a control mechanism. At the end of the day, it’s the children you are talking about. (Chair of Governors K) Governors have also raised other experiences that are an issue in school exclusions, including PRUs and their negative views among parents. One governor argued: In some circumstances, it might be justifiable but, in some others, it might not. (Chair of Governors M) Another argued: We have never had a permanent exclusion. One of the things that would worry me about this would be that actually if the family refuses to

54  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

acknowledge the exclusion and they withhold the child from the PRU, then they could be kept at home and are not included anywhere. It seems to me that having an experienced Educational Psychologist there when you make the final decision, should be a way of making sure that the child is supported. If the parent refuses the PRU, how do you enable the child to have a sustained education? (Chair of Governors T) Others argued: It may be also necessary sometimes to send a pupil to a PRU if the issue is serious. (Chair of Governors M) There comes a point when the governing body and the school say we cannot do anything anymore. At secondary school, pupils can come from a long way away. You just wonder if they were at school in their neighbourhood, it might be better. (Chair of Governors T) Another parent governor in the academy also raised concern about one academy practice in excluding children and off-rolling. She argued that the academy used managed transfers to the PRU and off-rolling to reduce its exclusions: I was aware of the managed transfers to the PRU when I was there, but this made exclusion rates look low.This can work with parental consent and what is best for that child but not what is best for the school’s figures. (Parent Governors Y) In addition, she also saw off-rolling which she argued against. As a result of her challenge to the headteacher and the governing body, she was pushed out from the governing body. Since she left there have never been any parent governors in the academy. This academy does not encourage any parent to be in the governing body. In Year 11 there is off-rolling called ‘extended study leaves’ so for some students they don’t come back after Easter. (Parent Governors Y) When the headteacher first came he told us he had come from a school that was turned around in a year. How did he do it? He said: ‘I make no bones about it – I got rid of the disruptive pupils. I am getting rid of the rotten ones in order that the good ones can do well.’ My mouth was falling open … I asked him ‘can you tell me what has happened to these pupils’? (Parent Governors Y)

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  55

It is clear from the governors’ focus group evidence that the governors have extensive experience in school exclusions with a good knowledge of statutory responsibilities, including the reasons for exclusions and over-representation of SEND and Black Caribbean pupils.The governors we interviewed provide a vital link between the school and the local community and their collective experiences provide a wider perspective for the management of the school.They also provide strong leadership in challenging the headteachers and monitoring exclusions. As a result, there were little or no exclusions in the LA-maintained schools.We would also argue that in these schools, exclusion measures are used as a last resort and the headteachers are well challenged by the governors’ exclusions panel to ensure the school’s decision to exclude is justified. However, while that is the case in local authority–maintained schools, parent governors in academies raised a worrying picture about the practice of excluding a large number of children, as both permanent and fixed-term exclusions, as well as informal off-rolling. One academy governor argued that their school used managed transfers to the PRU and off-rolling to reduce its exclusions and improve GCSE results at the end of year 11. As a result of their challenging these practices, they were pushed out from governing body. It is extremely concerning that the academy now actively discourages any parent governor. This is unacceptable. Our findings have implications for governors and schools in addressing school exclusions. All schools need a strong governors’ exclusion panel that carefully considers the school exclusion and behaviour policy and is effective in challenging headteachers before any decision on exclusions is made. We hope the findings of the governors’ focus group will provide a framework that schools can use to examine the ways in which their own school addresses school exclusions and equal opportunities.

Conclusions The evidence from the interview of teachers, school leaders, SENCOs, and governors highlighted a number of areas as key in the area of school exclusions, including off rolling, problems with transition from primary to secondary school, home environment, weakness in initial teacher training and the lack of inclusion, identity issues, family structures, and lack of support for excluded children beyond school gate. There is evidence that schools in England have for a number of years been in the unenviable position of trying to satisfy multiple interested parties, often with competing and conflicting expectations. They are battling with the demands of league tables, Ofsted inspections, parental views, diminishing budgets, teacher recruitment and retention, and competition between schools. A further analysis of SENCOs’, teachers’, and school leaders’ interview also reinforced teachers’ perceptions of improved home–school communication. Prior to the involvement of SENCO, most of the parents strongly held the opinion that they had received insufficient information from the schools about the behaviour

56  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

of their youngsters and the problems that were accruing which left them, when they became aware of the gravity of the situation, ‘feeling helpless because they hadn’t been told anything.’ In a minority of cases, the parents considered that if they had appreciated what was happening, they could have intervened and, perhaps, prevented the problems from escalating. Most parents saw the work in schools as fulfilling a useful conciliatory role in liaising with teachers following confrontations between teachers and their youngsters. Several parents also mentioned specifically that they welcomed the support provided by the school during review meetings held to discuss their youngster’s behaviour with senior staff. Our analysis of teachers’, school governors’, SENCOs’, and parents’ perspectives on the experience in school exclusions also suggests that there were important benefits to be derived from the role of the support SENCOs in schools. While the different positioning of the three groups means that they place a different emphasis on these, there is considerable consistency and agreement. SENCOs were uniformly valued for their accessibility and availability, skill in developing trusting relationships, and sympathetic, constructive advice on problems. Both teachers and parents agreed that SENCOs were responsible for facilitating joint parent–teacher interaction in the discussion of pupil problems. The significance of this is indicated by the strong evidence base supporting the benefits of involving parents, teachers, and pupils in joint strategies following pupils’ behaviour problems in school (Atkinson and Forehand 1979; Barth 1979; Miller 1996). It also accords with Kinder and Wilkin’s (1998) research into parental perspectives on measures to counteract pupil disruption which identified ‘parent–school partnerships’ as their top priority. Other research suggests that this benefit is likely to be even more significant in secondary schools than in primary schools. Thus, Vernon and Sinclair identify working with families, and the ensuing improved mediation between home and school, as one of the main components of successful projects where social services departments have contributed to reducing truancy and school exclusions. Our evidence suggests the SENCOs’ presence in schools facilitated communications between families, teachers, and external agencies and enabled the kind of engagement with senior management. The teachers’ comments also suggest that ‘school exclusion depends on the individual school’s values and its behaviour policy.’ Some are good at managing behaviour before invoking an exclusion. Some schools reported that they did not use exclusions at all or had not used permanent exclusions for many years. Other respondents argued it is possible to avoid permanent exclusion and that in their schools they have not excluded any child. One headteacher stated that: Exclusion is our very last resort, and we work very hard to keep all children in school, stretching the boundaries of our behaviour policy to its limit. The headteachers’ view is also supported by most of the governors we interviewed to understand the cause and consequences of school exclusions in English schools.

Teachers’, and governors’ experience  57

Overall, the above findings on the experience of teachers, headteachers, Special Educational Need Coordinators (SENCOs), and learning mentors are also supported by Timpson reports (2019) which stated that school staff who spoke to the researcher highlighted wider pressures on them, which they argued can lead to avoidable fixed periods and permanent exclusions: •

High stakes accountability, where a headteacher’s job is on the line if their schools’ don’t get the requisite examination results and/or attendance statistics. • levels of funding to schools and the services schools may rely on, which in the words of one headteacher has massively affected our capacity to innovate and provide flexible pathways for students at risk of exclusion. • curriculum changes which some saw as ‘switching off ’ a number of young people by having too great a focus on academic over creative or vocational subjects. (Timpson 2019:25) During the interview teachers, parents, and school staff also commented on their experience on the reasons for the overrepresentation of ethnic minorities and SEN pupils in school exclusions. They argued that there is a disproportionate rate of exclusion of Black Caribbean and SEN pupils in schools compared to their peers. These experiences will be taken up in the next chapters.

References Atkinson, B. M., and Forehand, R. (1979) ‘Home-based reinforcement programs designed to modify classroom behaviour: A review and a methodological evaluation’, Psychological Bulletin 86: 1298–1308. Barth, R. (1979) ‘Home-based reinforcement of school behaviour: A review and analysis’, Review of Educational Research 49: 436–458. Coram (2019) Unfair results Pupil and parent views on school exclusion. Brunswick Square. London: Coram Publisher. https://www.coram.org.uk/sites/default/files/resource_files/ School%20exclusions_full%20report_final_0.pdf Dean,W. (1995) School violence prevention. Oregon: ERIC Digest No. 94, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, March. Demie, F. (2019) ‘The experience of Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F., and McLean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean underachievement in schools in England. London: School Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA. Df E (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years Statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. London: Department of Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/ SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf Ferguson, H., Bouvaird, S., and Mueller, M. (2007) The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23494349_ The_impact_of_poverty_on_educational_outcomes_for_child

58  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

Gordon, A. (2001) ‘School exclusions in England: Children’s voices and adult solutions?’, Educational Studies 27(1): 69–85. House of Common Library (2018) Off-rolling in English schools. London: House of Common Library brief, Number 08444, 10 December. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8444 Joseph, A. (2020) ‘Navigating neoliberal school spaces: Parent and school staff perspectives on racially disproportional school exclusions in England’, Journal International Social Work 63(4): 445–458. Kinder, K., and Wilkin, A. (1998) With all respect: Reviewing disaffection strategies. Slough: NFER. Lawrence, J., Steed, M., and Young, P. (1984) ‘European voices on disruptive behaviour in schools: Definitions, concern, and types of behaviour’, British Journal of Educational Studies 32(19): 4–17. McCluskey, G. (2008) ‘Exclusion from school: What can ‘exclude’ pupils tell us?’ British Educational Research Journal 34(4): 447–466. Middleton, T., and Kay, L. (2020) Using an inclusive approach to reduce school exclusions: A practitioners handbook. Abingdon: Routledge. Miller, A. (1996) Pupil behaviour and teacher culture. London: Cassell. Miller, G. (1994) ‘School violence (mini-series): Impressions and implications’, School Psychology Review 23(2): 257–261. Munn, P., and Johnstone, M. (1992) Discipline in Scottish secondary schools. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education. Ofsted (2018a) Off-rolling: Using data to see a fuller picture, Blog Posted by: Jason Bradbury, June. https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/26/off-rolling-using-data-to-seea-fuller-picture/ Ofsted (2018b) School inspection update: Special edition. https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742258/School_inspection_update_-_special_edition_September_2018.pdf Ritter, D. R. (1989) ‘Teachers’ perceptions of problem behaviour in general and special ­education’, Exceptional Children 55(6): 559–564. Timpson, D. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf Wright, C., Weekes, D., and McGlaighlin, A. (2008) Race, class and gender in exclusion from school. Abingdon: Routledge.

4 THE VIEWS AND EXPERIENCE OF PARENTS WITH SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

Introduction This chapter will focus on the views and experience of parents with school exclusions. The previous chapters discussed exclusions challenges, factors associated with exclusions, and the experience of teachers and school staff with school exclusions. Recent research also looked at the experience and view of teachers, school leaders, SENCO, and governors with school exclusions (see Demie 2019a, 2019b; Df E 2019, 2017; EHRC 2015; EPI 2019; House of Common Library 2018; IPPR 2017; McClusky et al. 2016; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b; Parsons 2008; Power and Taylor 2018; Strand and Fletcher 2015; Timpson 2019; Wilson et al. 2020). There is also good research and data in relation to the life chances of the children who are excluded. Research shows that about 2% of excluded pupils finish schools with qualifications they need in maths and English (The Difference 2019).Thompson’s (2017) research also shows a worrying picture that four-fifth of those attending the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) has a statement of special educational needs or an Educational Health and Care Plan, and only 1% of young people in alternative provision receive a good GCSE pass. Timpson’s report also suggests that 78% of permanent exclusions are issued to children who have SEN and with a disproportionately high rate of exclusions for the Black Caribbean, Gypsy, and Roma students in England. All the evidence from previous research suggests that vulnerable groups of children are more likely to be excluded from schools. However, the review of the literature suggests that the experiences of the parents of children excluded from school are not well known in the exclusion debate and it is often not well recognised (McDonald and Thomas 2003). Previous research of excluded children in school is mainly focused on secondary schools (Daniels et al. 2003; Hayden and Dunne 2001), but there is little research that explores the views of parents who experience both permanent and fixed exclusions in England. DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-6

60  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

The parent perspective is important as looking into teachers, school leaders, governors’ perspectives as we have done in the previous chapter (Parker and Ford 2013). Previous studies, particularly that looked into the perspective of parents with children who have attention-hyperactivity deficit disorder (ADHD), highlight the significant challenges that parents face (Gwernan-Jones et al. 2015; Mcintrye and Hennessy 2012). Research and parents’ report in this area provide important evidence and insight into the needs of ADHD children (Collishaw et al. 2009). A number of previous research confirms that parental engagement and involvement in children’s education have a positive impact on pupil’s achievements, behaviour, and improved teacher–parent relationships (Demie 2019a, 2019c; Desforges and Abouchar 2003; DCSF 2008), despite the difficulties of a positive engagement between the school and parent. Demie’s (2019a:111) research also confirm that parental engagement and listening to all parents is very important. He argued that: Successful schools take the time to listen and understand parent aspiration for the children. They recognise that parents care deeply about their children’s education and want to know about their progress, the curriculum, homework, and behaviour management issues. Similarly, researchers also looked at parental perspectives in school exclusions. They recognised that understanding the experiences of parents and their influence within the exclusion process is of vital importance. However, international literature on the exclusion of pupils from school shows ‘studies that give voice to parents’ views are few’ (Smith 2009:89) and their stories are rarely heard (McDonald and Thomas 2003). McDonald and Thomas’s (2003) research has also reported parents felt the attitude of some teachers had a significant negative impact on behaviour and have left parents feeling ‘angry and powerless.’ Gordon’s (2001) literature review of studies that was focussing on the impact of exclusion that lack of communication from the school, parental uncertainty around exclusion appeal processes also suggest similar findings. Smith (2009) and Coram’s study also found parents reported significant negative emotional and practical impacts of the exclusion. It also confirmed that the family lacked support from schools through the exclusion process. Smith’s (2009) research that explored parents’ experience of students who had been excluded from school in New Zealand also suggested that ‘parents reported feeling powerlessness, of being talked down to, criticised and labelled as to blame, and expressed varying levels of anger, frustration, and grief.’ (Smith 2009:95) It is a well-established fact that school makes a difference for both the child’s academic and social-emotional development (Demie 2019a, 2019c; Mortimore and

The views and experience of parents  61

Whitty 1997; Sellstrom and Bremberg 2006), but some schools continue to exclude and suspend pupils on grounds of behavioural issues. The exclusion of children has created a challenge and frustration for parents. In parents’ view teachers have reported lacking skills to manage classroom behaviour and to manage children’s mental health and well-being (Demie and McLean 2017; Middleton and Kay 2020). Some teachers and school leaders have recently argued cuts in children mental health services (CAMHS) have placed more pressure on schools to support children with increasingly complex needs, and this has also added additional resourcing burden at the time the government continues to cut school budget and with not enough money for SEN children in school (Hayden 2003). A number of the research reported that parents of children who have been excluded in school face difficulties in dealing with school exclusion and suspension and this is now considered as a major issue in a school system affecting parents (Daniels et al. 2003; McDonald and Thomas 2003; Munn and Lloyd 2005). Previous studies looked at the experiences of parents of children with SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) in general and ADHD in particular (Gwernan-Jones et al. 2015; Mcintrye and Hennessy 2012; Parsons 2011). In this section, to understand the experience of parents with school exclusions, we carried out case studies of a number of parents whose children have been excluded because of a number of reasons. The parents interviewed for the case study covered children with NO SEN and with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), dyslexia, and children with SEN support. Again, we asked parents the same questions as in previous chapters. ‘What is your experience of school exclusion?’ with a focus on parents.

Key findings The following evidence emerged from the case study: Significantly, all the parents interviewed had the experience of exclusion, either because their own children had been excluded from school or as parent governors whose children had experienced difficulties in mainstream schools because of their SEND. One parent reported the stress related to school exclusion from her son’s school. The way and process it was managed by schools were excluded badly communicated. This parent also reported receiving unhelpful communications, unclear and inconsistent explanations for their son’s exclusion. No support was provided to keep him in the school. The exclusion of her son has taken its toll on the families. Parent A explained: My wife, daughter, and myself have been totally destroyed. This has affected us because we aren’t sure why they excluded and why they did not try to put a support system before this happened. (Parent A)

62  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

The parent of Black Caribbean heritage also reported that her son with ADHD, ODD, and dyslexia was excluded, and she has to request for change of provision when he was at age 14. Parents argued that her son was excluded because the school said has special needs and they will not be able to support his needs in the school. The parent felt that: The headteacher simply couldn’t understand his needs. He was later sent to the PRU which the parent thought would help him, but she complained that it didn’t. (Parent B) From my point of view, they excluded him because they didn’t want him to go to school. The LA couldn’t find a school that could meet his needs. (Parent B) A similar pattern emerges from another parent, where vital signs of this child’s social, emotional, and mental health issues were overlooked. My son who was 13 years old son and of Black Caribbean heritage were excluded from schools despite they know he has special needs. (Parent C) He has been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, Autism, ODD and Type 1 Diabetes. (Parent C) The school gave reasons for exclusions citing their behaviour policy.They said they had to adapt their behaviour policy to contain him. (Parent C) This parent of the child reported experiencing her despair at the situation of her child and the situation became increasingly difficult at home and he became quite angry with the whole issue and did not want to go to school. She said she always got negative reports about him from the school and the extent of his special needs had not been identified, although he had been diagnosed with ADHD when in Year 5. His family didn’t know also what ADHD meant. Another parent of a Black Caribbean child also reported that all three of her youngest children have had the experience of school exclusion: her 15-year-old son has been permanently excluded from school, her 14-year old-daughter and 13-year-old son have both had fixed-term exclusions. She argues that It was a stressful experience, and somebody needs to listen to how these exclusions impact the family.’ Schools and governing bodies have not done

The views and experience of parents  63

the job in my case my 15 years old should not end in PRU where all the children are challenging and excluded from schools. (Parent D) The case of my child illustrates how a parent who knew something was wrong with her son was unable to convince the school that his negative behaviour was linked to his underlying SEND. This parent further argued that One of the problems is that many teachers and staff in schools do not receive adequate SENS training. My child would have not been excluded if teachers and staff have good training, and they understand SEN children can stay in mainstream schools. (Parent D) This was further supported and mentioned by another parent who argued that in her experience it appears that many teachers and schools do not receive adequate SEN training: Some schools have little awareness of ADHD and interpret disruptive behaviour as a disciplinary issue, rather than an outward sign of an underlying neurodevelopmental difficulty e.g., sensory overload. The antecedents of unwanted behaviour are not focused on and there is an assumption that a child is ‘choosing’ to behave in a certain way. Schools often do not have the resources and/or the desire to educate SEND children. (Parent E) We agree with these parents that many teachers and staff in schools do not receive adequate SEND training – some schools have little awareness of ADHD. Parents interviewed in general complained that it often seems that schools do not have the resource and/or desire to educate SEN children in schools: Headteacher told me he should have a statement because the CAMAS said he has Autism, ADHD and when he gets to secondary school, he will have issues. (Parent E) The teacher in the school had not a clue and I felt as a parent the teacher did not comprehend SEN in talking to him. How can teachers not understand this? They just saw my son as being naughty? (Parent E) What the PRU does is give them an opportunity to meet all the difficult children. It has not helped my child and we had stressful experiences to deal with problems which his school would have supported if they did not have a rigid behavioural policy? (Parent F)

64  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

The experience of another White British parent with school exclusions is also stressful and very negative. In this case, the exclusion of an ADHD-diagnosed child was because of the relationship breakdown between the school and family. While parents feel victimised and can be angry, teachers are frustrated, and this may result in arguments and accusations. In the case of ADHD, teachers often take a child’s behaviour as personal and not as a symptom of their underlying condition. In her view, parent W argued that: There are not LA-wide SEND guidelines – so the treatment of a SEND child receives varies greatly between schools. Some SENDCo’s and schools are brilliant – some are not. (Parent W) This parent also argued about the lack of training for teachers and consequent lack of understanding with regard to the needs of children with ADHD. She has also highlighted the need for greater awareness in schools of the difficulties pupils are facing in their everyday lives, which affect their behaviour and their ability to organise themselves, particularly in secondary schools: You have to be super-organised. Their social and emotional health may be a factor in how they are able to do all these things like remembering their PE kits and moving from room to room. (Parent W) Not only is there a lack of recognition of pupils’ individual needs, but the behaviour of pupils of Black Caribbean heritage is also seen by teachers as ‘threatening’ and boys, in particular, are treated more harshly than their White peers, as a parent who is of Caribbean heritage explained: With Black Caribbean pupils and mixed race, I am only saying this in relation to my own children’s experience (but this is not exclusive), those children even with ADHD and ASD their behaviour is seen as more threatening or intransigent than other children. There is a barrier; if a Black Caribbean or African child is misbehaving it is dealt with more harshly; boys in particular. The relationship between school and parents is more likely to be problematic. There is a cultural barrier even if there isn’t a language barrier. I have been acting as a mediator in schools and parents feel threatened; you may have a parent with ADHD themselves and they don’t understand the system and they are in denial and feel the school is being racist. Even a middle-class parent will find the situation difficult. (Parent J) You then have these Black Caribbean boys being picked on all the time and they then become resentful, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the

The views and experience of parents  65

child is excluded, the parent cannot work, the minute you have to give up your job the family loses its income – it’s a travesty. (Parent J) Parents also recognise that schools are under pressure to improve the school and the school self-evaluation plans they have put in place have to show a continued improvement in results across all cohorts, but particularly pupils who are vulnerable or disengaged. These schools adopt a ‘one size fits all’ approach and anyone who doesn’t fit in will probably leave. Sometimes I hear from headteachers or SENDCos who say, We have one behavioural and exclusion policy. Everybody has to abide by it, and we cannot be doing something different for this child. (Parent J) School inclusion policies have to abide within the Law and the Equalities Act, and they don’t. I would like it is clear saying: Where relevant, we will make reasonable adjustments where a child has SEN or disabilities, to ensure we are not discriminating. (Parent S) They would need to make the cohort aware that this is a symptom of impairment not misbehaving. (Parent S) We ought to be considering earlier intervention. There is a big issue about children with SEND because they are more vulnerable, because the Law offers protection, in reality, they are being pushed out. Perhaps a headteacher doesn’t understand that this child’s behaviour is a direct result of their impairment. (Parent S) However, this parent with a child with physical disabilities recalled that the headteacher of the academy was Desperate to get rid of my son and said Infront of him. (Parent Y) I will not take any more people with SEN. He did not understand inclusion. His view was that my son should be in a special school and not in the academy. (Parent Y)

66  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

At her son’s secondary academy in Year 11, the school was involved in off-rolling pupils who they called ‘extended study leaves.’ A parent governor in the school explained: Some students where I am currently a parent governor, in the view of the headteacher, don’t come back to school after April. Parents were told it’s in their child’s best interest – to revise in the peace of their homes and come back to do their exams. These are pupils they have decided to cull so the teachers can focus on those pupils who are more likely to pass. This could be near to 30 pupils who they predict wouldn’t get 5 A-C GCSEs. (Parent Governor Y) We are not going to exclude you officially. As an academy we want to focus our efforts on those pupils who will get through GCSE. (Parent Governor Y) I became aware of the scale of this in my son’s year. If you have a disenfranchised parent/carer group, they wouldn’t know. (Parent Governor Y) My son would say: I haven’t seen so and so for a long time, what is going on? (Parent Governor Y) A learning support assistant told me you’d be shocked if you saw what was happening here. They are desperate to turn the school around. (Parent Governor Y) When the headteacher first came he told us he had come from a school that was turned around in a year. How did he do it? ‘He said: I make no bones about it – I got rid of the disruptive pupils. I am getting rid of the rotten ones in order that the good ones can do well. My mouth was falling open… I asked him-can you tell me what has happened to these pupils? (Parent Governor Y) Overall, based on the above evidence and the interviews with parents, it became clear that exclusions (fixed-term or permanent) and internal exclusions cause immense stress to families and make them feel judged – not just by professionals but by other parents. Parents and their children with SEND feel excluded not only from school but often from social groups at school; for example, they are often shunned and not invited to parties/social engagements. Parents reported that on school trips they are typically told their child cannot go unless a parent accompanies them, so they experience exclusion in a different sense if the parent in question cannot take

The views and experience of parents  67

time off work. During fixed-term exclusions, parents often find it difficult to deliver their child to the alternative temporary setting which may be a distance from their current school. This adds additional pressures on the family and some parents have experienced problems at work as they struggle to drop their child at the alternative setting and get to work on time. Parents who run a support group for parents of children with ADHD stated that they have noticed that parents’ mental health deteriorated during fixed term and permanent exclusions. The parents also reported that the demands of responding to exclusion letters, understanding exclusion procedures, telephone calls, and preparing for re-integration meetings is very stressful and this is exacerbated by: • Difficulties with the English language which makes navigating the system difficult. • Native speakers may have difficulties processing language, e.g. severe dyslexia. • Complex psychological language and acronyms are often used which undermines parents’ self-confidence. • Parents’ own poor experience of school life often affects their ability to engage with schools. There needs to be more active outreach on the behalf of the school. • Many parents are having to cope with chronic stress due to their child’s condition anyway, so they are vulnerable. • Year 7 transition: the security of the primary school setting is gone and often things fall apart making exclusions more likely; it is much more difficult for parents to cope with multiple teachers and contacts in secondary schools. A good number of the parents reported the school was unable to recognise the potential difficulties related to their rigid behavioural and school exclusion/ suspension policy. They argued children that who are excluded or at risk for exclusions need additional support and not exclusion or suspension. During the interview, there was evidence of stress among parents on this issue and including its negative mental health impact. This included being anxious about phone calls with the school and taking anti-depressants (although it is not clear if the mental health issues reported were pre-existing). Parents were worried about their child and the future. Parents also argued about the disproportionate school suspension of Black students as a persistent racial issue. Most parents viewed racial bias and cultural differences as responsible for the disproportionate exclusions of Black and ethnic minorities’ children. Many highlighted teachers’ and schools’ negative attitudes toward Black students in England. Parents argued that Black students are treated more harshly than White students and are targeted as disciplinary problems. There is a racial bias in a school culture that sees Black students and their families as problematic. The parents interviewed also described challenges to responding to diversity and, student misbehaviour in their children’s schools, and their exposure to social problems such as poverty that impact school engagement.

68  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

What is also more vivid and important from the parent interviews is that school exclusion has brought a negative impact on family life. It is also a concern that a significant number of the parents of the children that were excluded have a diagnosis that would classify them as SEND. They also argued that their children needed additional support in the schools, but the school has not listened to their views. A number of them mentioned that school behavioural exclusion is also rigid, and others reported they were not aware of their school’s exclusions policy prior to their child’s exclusion. The above findings from our study about the views and experience of parents in school exclusions are also reinforced by the Coram Children survey (Coram 2019) in which parents were also asked if ‘the exclusion impacted them or any of their family members.This piece of research was conducted with parents to understand their views and experiences on exclusion.The survey included parents who had a child temporarily or permanently excluded and a small-scale, and not representative, national sample.’ However, it is the best and only one available at the present time in addition to the case study parents interviewed for this study. The main findings of the Coram study show that parents were often unaware of the school’s exclusion procedure and sometimes found it inaccessible. They were generally unhappy with the way schools communicated information about exclusion with them and parents reported that: • •

• • •

Parents reported receiving unclear and inconsistent explanations for their child’s exclusion, as well as a lack of communication about the process. Parents felt unsupported by either schools or local authorities during the exclusion period. This included poor communication from the school during this time and patchy help with learning while excluded. Parents also mentioned minimal support with preparing to return to school or with finding an alternative school when the exclusion was permanent. Parents tended to report that exclusions were unfair and did not take sufficient account of their child’s circumstances and needs. Exclusion had a significant impact on pupils with parents reporting that their children suffered a loss of confidence and self-esteem, and their education and mental health was adversely affected. (Coram Children Charity 2019:10)

It is also important to stress here that the evidence from our parent interview and a review of literature provides only a snapshot of the school exclusions issues in England. The sample, as a case in much other research, is small to provide significant statistical evidence as it is not based on a national representative sample of all the children excluded from England schools (Coram Children Charity; Hodge and Wolstenholme 2018; Parker et al. 2015). This is a large task and requires huge resources to undertake such research. However, we have gathered anecdotal evidence of the views of parents that reported their children were excluded or risk exclusions. Clearly, our research raises concern particular about SEN children and BAME pupils that are disproportionately excluded from schools to boost examination

The views and experience of parents  69

grades. We would argue here the main job of school should not be only raising the standard of achievement at GCSE but also should be safeguarding children which is lost in recent periods.The right to exclude children, as we have argued elsewhere in this book, should be the last resort to protect other children and teachers from disruption or any persistent poor behaviour that cannot manage by schools, not on the scale reported in this study. We recognise there will be an example where headteachers and governing bodies have no alternative but excluding a child or off rolling to boost exam results is absolutely unacceptable. Policymakers and schools need to rethink what can be done to support children in schools and not to exclude them. Schools need to recognise also that coping with the exclusion of a child from school is a challenge for parents. This has brought significant stress on families as reported in this study. There are many other examples also about the stress it brings on parents and its negative impact on the social, emotional, and wellbeing of the family (Munn et al. 2001; Parsons and Castle 1998). It also means for some parents and families to keep the child at home and lose income as they were unable to attend work (Hodge and Wolstenholme 2018; Gazeley 2012; Gordon 2001; Parker et al. 2015).

Conclusions This chapter explored the views and experience of parents with school exclusions. They shared their experiences of children that schools excluded or risk exclusions. The parent interviewed covered a wide range of pupils, including children with ASD, ADHD, SPLD, and SEN support, and told a harrowing story of school exclusions. It has been made clear that exclusion had a significant impact and stress on pupils and their parents, including on their work and relationships with other family members. They have also shared an immense impact exclusion had on them, both emotionally and practically on their day-to-day lives. They are unhappy with the school’s approach to communication about their child exclusion. Some parents were unaware of even about the school’s exclusion policy. The findings here also confirm that parents had a negative experience with their child’s education. Parents highlighted the disproportionate exclusions of SEN, Black, and ethnic minorities’ children. Parents argued that Black students are treated more harshly than White students. What is also more vivid and important from that parent interviewed is that school exclusion has brought a negative impact on family life.They have argued that exclusions have caused immense stress and mental health issues for parents and children. It is also a concern that a significant number of the parents of the children that were excluded have a diagnosis that would classify them as SEND. They also argued that their children needed additional support in the schools, but the school has not listened to their views. A number of them mentioned that school behavioural exclusion is also rigid, and others reported they were not aware of their school’s exclusions policy prior to their child’s exclusion. Parents with SEN children also do not think they were offered enough support at school.

70  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

The experience shared by parents echoed the latest Ofsted chief Inspector annual report (Ofsted 2020).The research highlighted many of the concerns and issues that parents have raised in this study about the experiences of children with SEND that were excluded in the school system.

References Collishaw, S., Goodman, R., Ford, T., Rabe-Hesketh, S., and Pickles, A. (2009) ‘How far are associations between child, family and community factors and child psychopathology informant-specific and informant-general?’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50: 571–580. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.2009.50.issue-5 Coram Children Charity (2019) Unfair results Pupil and parent views on school exclusion. https://www.coram.org.uk/sites/default/files/resource_files/School%20exclusions_ full%20report_final_0.pdf Demie, F. (2019a) ‘The experience of Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F. (2019b) Exclusions of pupils from schools in England: Extent, causes and consequences: Research project brief. London: Lambeth School Research and Statistics Unit. https:// www.lambeth.gov.uk/rsu/sites/; www.lambeth.gov.uk.rsu/files/school_exclusions_in_ england_research_brief.pdf Demie, F. (2019c) Educational inequality: Closing the gap. UCL IOE Press. Demie, F., and McLean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean underachievement in schools in England. London: School Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA. Daniels, H., Cole, T., Sellman, E., Sutton, J., Visser, J., and Bedward, J. (2003) Study of young people permanently excluded from school. London: Df ES Publication. DCSF (2008) The impact of parental involvement on children’s education. Nottingham: DCSF Publications. Desforges, C., and Abouchar, A. (2003) The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A literature review. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills. Df E (2017) Exclusion from maintained schools, academies, and pupil referral units in England: Statutory guidance for those with legal responsibilities in relation to exclusion. London: Department of Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-exclusion Df E (2019) Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England 2017–2018. London: Department for Education, 25 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-andfixed-period-exclusions-in-england-2017-to-2018 EHRC (2015) Is Britain fairer? The state of equality and human rights. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ is-britain-fairer-the-state-of-equality-and-human-rights-2015 EPI (2019) Unexplained pupil exits from schools: A growing problem? London: Education Policy Unit, April. https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EPI_Unexplained-pupilexits_2019.pdf Hodge, N., and Wolstenholme (2018) ‘I didn’t stand a chance’: How parents experience the exclusions appeal tribunal’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 20(16): 1297–1309. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2016.1168875 House of Common Library (2018) Off-rolling in English schools. London: House of Common Library brief, Number 08444, 10 December. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8444

The views and experience of parents  71

Gazeley, L. (2012) ‘The impact of social class on parent-professional interaction in school exclusion processes: Deficit or disadvantage?’ International Journal of Inclusive Education 16(3): 297–311. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2010.489121 Gordon (2001) ‘School exclusions in England: Children’s voices and adult solutions?’ Educational Studies 27: 69–85. doi: 10.1080/03055690020002143 Gwernan-Jones, R., Moore, D. A., Garside, R., Richardson, M., Thompson-Coon, J., Rogers, R., Cooper, P., Stein, K., and Ford, T. (2015) ‘ADHD, parent perspectives and parentteacher relationships: Grounds for conflict’, British Journal of Special Education 42: 279–300. doi: 10.1111/bjsp.2015.42.issue-3 Hayden, C. (2003) ‘Responding to exclusion from school in England’, Journal of Educational Administration 41: 626–639. doi: 10.1108/09578230310504625 Hayden, C., and Dunne, S. (2001) Outside looking in: Children’s and families experiences of exclusion from school. London: The Children’s Society. IPPR (2017) Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ making-the-difference-report-october-2017.pdf McClusky, G., Riddell, Sheila, Weedon, E., and Fordyce, M. (2016) ‘Exclusion from school and recognition of difference’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37(4): 529–539. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2015.1073 McDonald, T., and Thomas, G. (2003) ‘Parents’ reflections on their children being excluded’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 8: 108–119. McIntrye, R., and Hennessy, E. (2012) ‘He’s just enthusiastic. Is that such a bad thing? Experiences of parents of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder’. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 17: 65–82. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2012.652428 Middleton, T., and Kay, L. (2020) Using an inclusive approach to reduce school exclusions: A practitioners handbook. Routledge. Mortimore and Whitty (1997) Can school improvement overcome the effect of disadvantaged? Institute of Education, University of London. Munn, P., Cullen, M., Johnstone, M., and Lloyd, G. (2001) ‘Exclusion from school: A view from Scotland of policy and practice’, Research Papers in Education 16(1): 23–42. doi: 10.1080/02671520122821 Munn, P., and Lloyd (2005) ‘Exclusion and excluded pupils’, British Educational Research Journal 31: 205–221. doi: 10.1080/0141192052000340215 Ofsted (2020). Ofsted Annual Report 2019/20. https://www.gov.uk/government/ collections/ofsted-annual-report-201920 Ofsted (2018a) Off-rolling: Using data to see a fuller picture, Blog Posted by: Jason Bradbury, June. https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/26/off-rolling-using-data-tosee-a-fuller-picture/ Ofsted (2018b) School inspection update. Special edition. https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742258/School_inspection_update_-_special_edition_September_2018.pdf Parker, C., and Ford, T. (2013) ‘School exclusion is a mental health issue’, Journal Children Psychologist Psychiatry 54: 1366–1368. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12174 Parker, C., Whear, R., Ukoumunne, O. C., Bethel, A., Thompson-Coon, T., Stein K. and Ford, T. (2015) ‘School exclusion in children with psychiatric disorder or impairing psychopathology: A systematic Review’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 20(3): 229–251. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2014 Parsons, C. (2008) ‘Race relations legislation, ethnicity and disproportionality in school exclusions in England’, Cambridge Journal of Education 39 (3): 401–419.

72  Experience of teachers, school staff & parents

Parsons, C. (2011) Strategic alternatives to exclusions from schools. London: Trentham Book Publishers. Parsons, C., and Castle, F. (1998) ‘The cost of school exclusion in England’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 2(4): 277–294. doi: 10.1080/1360311980020402 Power, S., and Taylor, C. (2018) ‘Not in the classroom, but still on the register: Hidden forms of school exclusion’, International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://www.tandfonline. com/doi/full/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492644 Sellstrom, E., and Bremberg, S. (2006) ‘Is there a “school effect” on pupil outcomes? A Review of Multilevel Studies’, Journal Epidemiology Community Health 60: 149–155. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.036707 Smith, A. P. (2009) ‘New Zealand families’ Experience of having a teenager excluded from school’, Pastoral Care in Education 27: 89–100. doi: 10.1080/02643940902897665 Strand, S., and Fletcher, J. (2015) A quantitative longitudinal analysis of exclusions from English secondary schools. Oxford: Education Department. http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/ wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Exclusion-from-Secondary-schools_small.pdf The Difference (2019) The difference website. www.the-difference Thompson, D. (2017) Whoa are the pupils in alternative provision? https://ffteducationadatalab. org.uk Timpson, D. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf Wilson, M., Yull, G., and Massey, S. (2020) ‘Race and the politics of educational exclusion: Explaining the persistence of disproportionate disciplinary practices in an urban school district’, Race Ethnicity and Education 23(1): 134–157.

PART III

Ethnic and special educational needs disproportionality in school exclusions

5 ETHNIC DISPROPORTIONALITY IN SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

Introduction This chapter examines ethnic disproportionally in school exclusions. Chapter 1 in this book and past research have also explored the effects of school exclusions on race and ethnicity and show that a highly disproportionate number of Black pupils were excluded from schools (Gillborn and Mirza 2000; Parsons 2009;Wright 2010). The over-representation of Black pupils in school exclusions is not new (Coard 1971), and all latest research evidence also confirms that those who are at disproportionate risk of exclusions in schools are Black Caribbean, Mixed White and the Black Caribbean, Gypsy/Roma pupils in England (Demie 2019a; Demie and McLean 2017; Df E 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; IPPR 2017; Parsons 2009;Timpson 2019). There is now a growing body of research that argues the need to explore the reasons for Black pupils’ over-representation and on what needs to be done to tackle disproportionality in school exclusions, as they affect the academic achievement of students of colour; yet the reasons for those disparities are less well documented or under-researched. Given the paucity of research on the factors that contributed to disproportionality and the inconsistent results of past research in the UK, this chapter aims to investigate the main reasons for ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions with a focus on London schools.Three overarching questions guided this chapter’s research: • • •

What does the empirical evidence tell us about disproportionality? What are the reasons for ethnic disproportionality? What is the implication of the ethnic disproportionality for policy and practice?

The findings which emerged from the case study interviews are given in the ­sections that follow. DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-8

76  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

0.44 0.41 0.36

0.36 0.28 0.24

0.13

0.1

0.04

0.02

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 White Brish Indian FIGURE 5.1 

White/Black Caribbean Black Caribbean

Gypsy/Roma

Trend in permanent exclusions in England by main ethnic groups

Source: Permanent exclusions in England: 2007 to 2018, Df E SFR26/2019

The scale of the problem The empirical evidence in England shows a worrying picture about disproportionality in school exclusions. Of particular concern is that Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils had the highest exclusion rates over the period (see Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1), with Black Caribbean pupils being over twice as likely to receive a fixed period exclusion than the school population as a whole.Two relatively small groups had the highest permanent exclusion rates, Gypsy/Roma pupils and Travellers of Irish Heritage at 0.36% and 0.29% respectively, an incidence that is about three times higher than that of the overall school population. Other research also noted that a key factor influencing the attainment of Black Caribbean children is the extent to which they are excluded from school learning opportunities. Black Caribbean children are most likely to be excluded from school and also represent the most excluded group of pupils in British schools (EHRC 2015). The most recent Df E statistics on exclusions show that the Black Caribbean are over-represented in both permanent and fixed-term exclusions (see Table 5.1), and so are boys and FSM pupils (Df E 2019a). The fixed period exclusion for Travellers of Irish heritage pupils was 17.42% – more than three times the national rate. They were followed by Gypsy/Roma (16.52%), Black Caribbean (10.46%), and then White and Black Caribbean (10.13%). Overall, nationally 0.05% of girls and 0.15% of boys were permanently excluded, giving the boys an exclusion rate three times as high as that for girls. This rate was

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  77 TABLE 5.1 Exclusions by pupil characteristics in schools in England, percentage of

population, 2018 Pupils characteristics

Ethnic background

Ethnic background

Number Gypsy/ Roma Traveller of Irish heritage Black Caribbean White and Black Caribbean Irish White and Black African Any other Mixed Any other Black White British White and Asian Black African Pakistani Any other group Any other White Bangladeshi Any other Asian Indian Chinese Boys Girls FSM Non-FSM All

Gender Free School meal Status All Pupils

Permanent Exclusions 7,905 0.36 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.05 0.28 0.07 0.10

Fixed term Exclusions 410,753 16.52 17.42 10.46 10.13 5.00 5.78 4.52 5.80 5.70 3.41 4.08 2.52 3.16 2.74 1.93 1.45 0.75 0.50 7.23 2.85 13.65 3.73 5.08

Source: Df E (2019a, 2019c)

even higher for White and Black Caribbean and Black Caribbean pupils, suggesting that the high exclusion rate was partly due to boys of that ethnic group. Exclusions are also associated with poverty. The national empirical data suggest pupils who are on fixed period or permanent exclusions are more likely to be eligible for free school meals; pupils known to be eligible for free school meals were also more likely to receive a fixed period exclusion or to be permanently excluded during all phases of education. Table 5.1 shows pupils eligible for free school meals were about four times as likely to receive a permanent exclusion as other pupils in 2017/8. A similar picture was noted for fixed-term exclusions. Overall, pupils eligible for a free school meal were more than three times as likely as those not eligible to have a fixed-term exclusion. About 3.73% of those not eligible and 13.65% of those eligible had fixed-term exclusions.This was also evident for both primary and secondary phases when examined separately, while there was less of a difference for special school pupils, where FSM pupils were about twice as likely to be excluded (Df E 2019a, 2019c).

78  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Reasons for ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions In the above section, we reviewed works of literature and carried out an empirical investigation to draw lessons by examining in detail the national exclusions data. The evidence from the review and data suggests the over-representation of Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusions. In the section that follows, we will discuss the findings from our research on the reasons with particular focus on Black Caribbean pupils. In our research questions, we asked those interviewed for their thoughts on ‘What are the reasons for the over-representation of some ethnic minorities and particularly Black Caribbean pupils in exclusions?’ A number of reasons were given by the respondents for the over-representation of ethnic minority pupils in exclusion statistics. These included: • • • • • •

Institutional racism. Teachers’ low expectations. Single-parent factor. Poverty factor. Lack of effective training of staff on multicultural education, diversity, and race issues. Lack of diversity in the school workforce.

These factors are discussed below.

Institutional racism Another factor that was raised in our case study interview was the issue of institutional racism. Institutional racism is a form of racism that occurs in an organisation. These are discriminatory treatments, unfair policies, or biased practices based on race that result in inequitable outcomes for Whites over people of colour and extend considerably beyond prejudice.These institutional policies often never mention any racial group, but the intent is to create advantages. Institutional racism was defined by Macpherson (1999) in the UK’s Lawrence Enquiry as: The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. (See Guardian 1999:1; Macpherson 1999) In our case study interview and school visit we asked, ‘Do you believe Institutional racism is a factor in school exclusions and underachievement of Black pupils?’ Headteachers argued that:

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  79

Absolutely! How many black policemen have we got, or how many Black teachers have we got? (Headteacher A) Institutional racism is still an issue in society. A lot of scaremongering in the Press, vilifying young black men; they read the headlines and though there has been a fall in knife crime, they will take one aspect and go on about that. (Headteacher B) It is harder for black men to get work. Even if they have exactly the same qualifications as a white counterpart, they are overlooked. (Headteacher E) Racism is a key factor for Black Caribbean exclusion. If you do not understand the impact of history, you cannot describe or explain. The proportion of black youth is in a majority in the penal system and percentage-wise they are over-represented despite being a much smaller percentage in the population as a whole. You cannot exclude racism and the impact it has on people. (Former Deputy Principal and Tutor of excluded children K) The evidence from the headteachers interview racism is absolutely an issue and is one of the key factors for the over-representation of Black pupils in school exclusions. An educational psychologist also gave her views about the over-representation of Black Caribbean pupils being excluded: I think there are a number of different reasons. My personal view is I think there is quite a lot of institutional racism, particularly against boys of Black Caribbean background. In one school I have two children behaving in the same way, one from a middle-class White background and the other Black Caribbean and the Black Caribbean child was excluded. (Educational Psychologist A) Another educational psychologist also gave her views about the reasons for overrepresentation in school exclusions: I would say that racism is a factor in this. A school is not in isolation of ­community and racism exists in our society at large. (Educational Psychologist B)

80  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Institutional racism, cultural barriers, and the historical ‘glass ceiling’ imposed on Black Caribbean pupils, were also reported as some of the reasons for over-­ representation in exclusions statistics cited by school governors: Institutional racism. My hypothesis is if you have been subjected to racism over several generations, then this is going to make your hopes and dreams more difficult … Several generations are told you shouldn’t achieve, and you cannot go to university; you have no reason to aspire. Your child is told this and their child the same. That’s a bigger barrier to overcome than for a new immigrant. (Governor S) Institutional racism, families facing multiple challenges and gang culture. (Chair of Governors RE) There is cultural a barrier. With Black Caribbean pupils and mixed race, I am only saying this in relation to my own children’s experience, those children even with ADHD and ASD their behaviour is seen as more threatening or intransigent than other children. If a Black Caribbean or African child is misbehaving it is dealt with more harshly, boys in particular. The relationship between school and parents is more likely to be problematic. There is a cultural barrier even if there isn’t a language barrier. (Parent Governor SJ) We decided to expand on the issues of colour and race by asking another question: ‘Why do children born here feel that colour is an issue?’ I am thinking of some of the pupils we have in our school.There is something different about how some of our black children respond to different teachers. They are very honed into those teachers they can talk to and those they can’t. They have more frictions, and more arguments, and things go downhill.’They consider race issues. (SENCo A) I tend not to notice colour of the pupils. A mother came in and complained that her son was picked on by another child but pulled his hair. She thought it was racism, but I couldn’t tell her that the other child was autistic. (SENCo B) I don’t see colour the way a lot of these children do. I went to school in Essex, and I was the only black child in the school.To me it’s about getting on in life and sometimes children use it as an excuse. (SENCo A)

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  81

You say you don’t see colour and I say I don’t see colour. Maybe some teachers see the cultural differences and feel they cannot form a relationship with certain children. (SENCo A) I used to work at … And a colleague and I shared an office, and we had a discussion, and she would say ‘but you don’t know anything about our history … people do look at us in a different way’. She said, ‘Look how many black SENDCo’s and black teachers there are.’ I asked her why there was a Black Teachers Association and she told me why. (SENCo B) The media is an issue. All the time we hear black people are stabbing, gangs, drugs, always negative. (SENCo B) The educational psychologists and SENCOs we interviewed have amassed many years of working in the area and some at a senior level within the educational psychology service. Their experiences confirm that the rise of school exclusions and the over-representation of Black Caribbean pupils are related to issues that often manifest as behaviour problems, and there is a sense that schools do not know how to help the child or do not understand the child’s anxiety or have training that helps them. As highlighted above by many of the headteachers, parents, teachers, governors, and educational psychologists we interviewed, racism in society is still an issue and it is a major factor affecting school exclusions and the achievement of Black students.The experiences of school staff interviewed also support the view that the over-representation of Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusions in England is shaped by institutional racism. Most recent research concurs that many Black students are being subjected in the same way in English schools, a process which can dramatically undermine their chances of academic success (Demie 2019a, 2019c; Demie and McLean 2017; EHRC 2015; IPPR 2017; Macpherson 1999; Parsons 2009). There is a concern that the British school curriculum focuses on British culture and history and ignores Britain’s imperial and colonial past and the contribution of ethnic minorities to the making of modern Britain. We would argue that in a multicultural society, there is a need to develop and use an inclusive curriculum that recognises that students in schools come from a range of different backgrounds to provide learning opportunities for all students and staff in English education.

Teachers’ low expectations The evidence from our research suggests that one of the main reasons for underachievement and over-representation in school exclusions was teachers’ low

82  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

expectations of Black Caribbean pupils. These were highlighted by educational psychologists, parents, and governors we interviewed: During my own research on ‘challenging behaviour’, one parent told me that she stopped going to the school because every time she went there, she was bombarded with negative comments about her son. She noted teachers with low expectations of Black boys. Teachers expected them to do badly. Being academically able does not prevent you from being excluded. (Educational Psychologist D) My British White teachers had a low expectation of me as a mixed-race child when I was in school. C or D grade estimate was a norm with all White British teachers, but I got A* in all subjects when I took me A level. The same was true through my primary and secondary GCSE educations. Always assessed in teacher assessment about 2–4 levels below what I get when I take tests. What is more interesting is that despite my teacher’s low expectations in primary and secondary, I went to the best university and completed both my undergraduate and postgraduate Degrees with distinctions. (Parent W) Teachers’ tend to underestimate the academic abilities of students of colour. As a result, Black students anticipate that their teachers think less of them. They work harder in class to prove them wrong. (Parent Governor) Low expectations and poor communication failed my child. I believe low expectations are institutional. (Parent T) Such low expectations were often tied in with the perceived labelling and stereotyping of Black pupils, perhaps especially boys. Parents, teachers, and professional experts all had accounts to report of such processes in action: My son has always been bigger than the average child. From Year 1 onwards he got labelled, stereotyped from Year 1. They put all the Black children on the same table in his class. From then on, I felt I needed to fight. There was a particular incident where my son told me that his teacher kept calling him ‘Violent’. (Parent H) I believe there has been some labelling of children – many years ago when I first became Headteacher of this school, I was given the label for a child as having ‘oppositional defiance disorder’ – I said: ‘Sorry, he is just naughty! (Headteacher A)

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  83

He’s a big lad and they feel intimidated. They said: ‘He is in a gang.’ He’s a young black lad who hangs around with other black kids. Stereotyping. (Educational Psychologist F) I can remember reading that at the age of 14 years Black Caribbean pupils are taller than their white male counterparts and this can have an impact on how white teachers see them – because they look older, there is an expectation that you are older. You are going to have a different expectation of the child. (Educational Psychologist H) He’s a big lad and they feel intimidated. (Educational Psychologist F) There are stereotypes inside and outside school. (Educational Psychologist F) The group moved on to discuss in more depth the issue of unconscious bias. They felt it was a potential issue if teachers didn’t account for pupils’ background heritage, and identity. It’s partly relational. If you think about the demographics of pupils in the school and the teachers; black boys taught by white women. If they don’t identify with the teacher, it’s like knocking heads together. (Educational Psychologist H) How much does the school share in the colour of the pupils in the school, through their hair and their clothes? (Educational Psychologist F) There’s an issue of equality and equity.Teachers from different backgrounds in the classroom working with all the children – they might leave gaps. (Educational Psychologist G) Sometimes, the core of the issue is missed – there can be unconscious bias –sometimes things can be tokenistic. (Educational Psychologist F) The above finding on teacher low expectations and stereotyping is supported by a number of previous studies (Demie 2019a, 2019b; Demie and McLean 2017; Donlevy et al. 2016; Gillborn and Youdell 2000; McKown and Weinstein 2008; Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007; Villegas and Irvine 2010; Ennis in the UK and the USA). Davies’s and De Boer et al.’s (2018) research in New Zealand also confirms similar findings of teacher low expectation and pointed out that teachers differed in

84  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

their average level of expectations for their students in the classroom. They argued that this was reflected in their teaching behaviour and high-expectation teachers spent more time on providing a framework for students’ learning.They also provide more feedback, questioned their students by using more higher-order questions, and managed the students’ behaviour more positively compared with the teachers with low-level expectations (De Boer et al. 2018). These findings on low expectations are also supported by previous studies in England (wright 202; IPPR 2004) and other international studies which show that biases in expectations may influence which children teachers feel are most likely to pose a significant challenge. The US study confirms that White teachers are more likely to recommend Black students for disciplinary action than White students because of low expectations of Black students. They often hold higher expectations for White students than for Black students (see Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007). Bates and Glick and Hathaway have also suggested that teachers are more likely to low expectations for Black children than White teachers and there are implicit biases in expectations depending on race and social background. Such bias and low expectations based on race are unacceptable, and there is a need for every school to improve their diversity and ensure to tackle low expectations, whatever the child’s background is in classroom.

Single-parent factor Single parenting is a very important social issue that can have significant effects on a child’s exclusion and academic achievement. Children who are raised in a single family are sometimes at risk of not reaching their full potential.They have to rely on one parent to provide adequate support for the child to perform to the best of their ability. The Runnymede Trust (2014) shows 59% of Black Caribbean children are growing up in single-parent families, a rate nearly three times as high as the overall average of about 22% in the UK. This increased risk of children from single-mother families compared to couple families is mentioned in the focus group, but this may be partly explained by socioeconomic factors, not by being a single parent. On the issue of single-parent families, respondents argued that single-parent families have been part of mainstream family life in the UK for many years: Single parent should not be a factor for overrepresentation of some groups on school exclusions. (Headteacher F)

There is growing economic independence of women. Society has changed and each new generation of young women has entered the labour force in greater proportions, and they support their children. (Teacher B)

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  85

One headteacher argued that this is a really complex situation, and you cannot use a single-parent factor as a reason for exclusions and over-representation in school exclusions statistics. socio-economic factors including family financial hardship explains a lot why some children are excluded compared to others. (Headteachers B) Despite this, however, others in the case study interviews also argued that: Single parent is a factor – A young carer, he had several fixed-term exclusions. His mum was a single parent and crying out for help, but she needed adult care, not from a child. He failed all his exams. (SENCo A) It’s tough being a single parent. I am hoping that we can educate them so that they learn something about relationships. (SENCo A) A lot of children come from single-parent, maternal families.There are mainly female teachers and no black role models in primary schools. If these children, see black males doing well it would have an impact. (SENCo F) Another SENCO in School E disagreed about role model issues and argued: This is not the case in our school there are many black male role models. Most men go into secondary schools. The race is a lovely red herring. What happens when they have moved from primary school – something happens when they go to secondary, they cannot cope. (SENCo E) A number of respondents highlighted the importance of family structure and how families in less traditional structures, or from different ethnic backgrounds, can face additional challenges: Family foundation is core. Mums may have had a bad experience of schools themselves and they are re-living this with their child. For them, the school was a horrible place. (SENCo C) My husband is from the Caribbean. He still experiences discrimination in the workplace from middle-class white managers. Many of his workmates lost their jobs when they made cuts because they were black. (SENCo D)

86  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

My husband finds that people look down on him. He was born here, and he went back to Jamaica when he was two and came back here at 21 years when we met. (SENCo D)

Poverty factor The other main factor articulated as responsible for over-representation is poverty. In Britain, poverty rates were higher for children living in a household headed by someone from an ethnic minority (41.9%), Pakistani and Bangladeshi (43.8%), Black Caribbean (39.4%), Mixed race (26.5%), Indian (24.9%) compared with someone from White group (24.5%) (EHRC 2015). Poverty is seen to play a major role in underachievement and school exclusions for Black and ethnic minorities. Over the years research has reported noteworthy associations between low income and psychiatric disorders, social and academic functioning, and chronic physical health problems. One of the key areas influenced by family income is exclusion and education outcomes. A primary headteacher spoke about the decades of disadvantage that some Black families experienced: Our Black Caribbean parents work but they are not high earners. (Headteacher A) Black Caribbean are underachieving because of poverty. In some cases, this was one of the factors for school exclusions. (Headteacher G) There needs to be a much wider understanding about well-being. If children who are stressed in the classroom are affected by the poverty factor at home, they are not going to do well. Some may end up in school exclusions statistics (Headteacher E) BAME families live mainly in deprived areas or pupils go to schools in deprived areas. I think the geographical area affects them. Few plays or green spaces. Life is tough. There is financial and environmental and social poverty that affects attainment and contributes to school exclusions. A low income affects all groups. (School Governor S) The findings from the view of the headteacher and governors suggest BAME families live mainly in deprived areas, and they are not high earners compared their White peers. This evidence also shows that poverty is one of the factors affecting

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  87

underachievement and wellbeing of pupils in schools and as a result some pupils may have ended up in school exclusions. The above views on the effect of poverty on BAME are also supported by previous research. For example, Demie and McLean (2017), EHRC (2015), and Weeks-Berand all argue that economic deprivation appears widely prevalent among Black Groups. Many Black Caribbean and Black Africans are further disadvantaged by the fact they attend under-resourced and less successful schools in inner cities. Cassen and Kingdon (2007) also suggest that where schools have an opportunity to select children, this operates to the detriment of economically disadvantaged Black pupils and in some cases is one of the factors that has contributed to the disproportionality exclusion of ethnic minorities in school. One teacher summed succinctly: We have a Black family on a local estate. The children are also excluded from schools. All linked to poverty and other social factors. (Teacher E)

Training and induction issues There is also a training issue for teachers, educational psychologists, and SENCOs in terms of multicultural education and diversity and race equality issues. University lectures and placements for teachers and educational psychologists did not always seem to have prepared our respondents well for understanding race and diversity issues, including how to handle the challenge of ensuring that all their students received informed and fair treatment: There was no focus on inclusion or of teaching in a diverse community in the University outside of London where I did my PGCE. My first placement was in a school with mainly Bangladeshi pupils and the other [one] was all white. One of the reasons I came to London to teach was because I wanted to teach in a diverse community. I was nervous when I first started in case, I couldn’t do it. (Teacher, School D) I speak to teachers who remember doing half a day on inclusion in their training. (Educational Psychologist D) I was trained for my PGCE at University in London where diversity is valued and appreciated. I was sent off to schools all over the place, East, South, and West London! My friends in Northern Ireland are quite impressed and amazed at the diversity in our schools. (Teacher, School D) As can be seen from the accounts provided above, the evidence from our research suggests that teachers’ understanding of diversity questions often varied according

88  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

to where they worked or where they did their initial teacher training. There is little evidence about diversity outside London where these issues have been tackled both at school and at LA over the years.

Lack of diversity of school workforce There is also the important question about whether the ethnic composition of teachers and the school workforce reflects the general population of a school. Despite the fact that schools and universities in Britain are becoming more globalised, diverse, and multicultural, teaching staff, educational psychologists, and SENCOs are often not from the diverse multicultural community that the schools serve. In this sense, Black pupils may lack role models and parents may lack confidence that White staff completely understand the challenges they and their children face. Recent data suggest that 91% of school leadership and 86% of teachers and other staff in England and Wales are White British (Demie and McLean 2017). Overall, the comments of the people interviewed above highlighted the reasons for ethnic over-representation and that there are race differences in school exclusions in the United Kingdom. The incidence of school exclusions is highest in Blacks. There is also evidence in the views of the respondents that Black Caribbean pupils may be disciplined more severely for less serious or more subjective reasons and the disproportionate discipline of students of ethnic minorities may be due to lack of teacher preparation in classroom management, lack of training in culturally competent practices, or racial stereotypes that needs to be challenged in schools.

Some approaches to tackle ethnic disproportionality The above discussion highlighted the reasons for ethnic disproportionality in schools including teachers’ low expectations, institutional racism, stereotyping, lack of effective training for staff on diversity and race issues, and a lack of diversity in the school and professional workforce. However, the evidence from our interview about ethnic disproportionality also confirms schools are tackling the issues of overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in exclusion in a number of ways. We asked the respondents at the end of the interview if they had any additional comments that they would like to make. A number of them mentioned some of the work in school to tackle disproportionality. Some of the schools have commented they have not excluded a child for at least a number of years. The comments of the headteacher, teachers, parents, and SENCOs below summarise some of the work of successful school that helped to tackle disproportionality: Our school is multicultural and multi-ethnic and racism and low expectations are not tolerated. (Headteacher A)

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  89

Leaders and teachers at all levels are highly very keen to provide every pupil with the best education whatever their background in terms of ethnic background (Headteacher school D) The headteacher will always make time for you as parents and pupils (parent) We have a curriculum that reflects the reality of the pupils’ lives and the diversity of the community the school serves. This has helped in tackle any school exclusions (Deputy headteacher) We pride ourselves that we have representations of the local community on our staff team, and We have a diverse workforce. In our teaching, we have made a range of teachers from the world, and we have a local working in our schools to reflect the ethnic group we serve (headteacher B) Most of our staff speak community languages, pupils in our school feel they can share their concerns with us (headteacher E) We are very mindful of the whole child; we have mindfulness, nurture groups, cook-up, art therapy, horse-riding for the children. This doesn’t happen in secondary schools. (Headteacher F) Middle-class kids have mummy and daddy providing all this for them and they don’t get that at school, but our children would fall apart if they didn’t have all that. (SENCo F) We are trying to build in resilience. It’s the lack of this resilience that holds them back. They have to realise that when you go to Secondary School and have a personal belief in themselves and be able to cope. I was a PE coach and I noted when we lost a game all the pupils’ heads went down. I said, ‘Go to that other team and say well done! (Headteacher F) Clearly, in successful multi-ethnic schools where there are no or little exclusions, racism and low expectations are not tolerated. Those schools pride themselves on having a diverse workforce and representations of the local community on their staff team. The schools are promoting equality of opportunities for all groups and teachers are fully committed to providing the best education, and they have high

90  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

expectations of all pupils, whatever their background. No teachers in these schools work in isolation as argued by one of the headteachers: We work in teams and every member of staff is well trained as a coach. We recognise that everyone has emotional needs and we have ensured every teacher is well trained in behaviour management and in supporting children that are likely to be excluded (Headteacher A)

Conclusions One of the challenges facing policymakers and school leaders in England is the growing number of exclusions and over-representation of ethnic minority pupils. In particular, school exclusions have remained a persistent problem over many years, underpinning the concerns and debates repeatedly raised about educational underachievement among specific groups of minority ethnic pupils. It is now well known that Black Caribbean, Mixed White and the Black Caribbean, Gypsy/Roma pupils, and Travellers of Irish Heritage pupils in England are disproportionately represented within school exclusions figures (Demie 2019a, 2019c; Demie and McLean 2017; Df E 2019a, 2019b; Timpson 2019). This chapter aimed to investigate the reasons for the over-representation of ethnic minorities pupils including Black Caribbean, Mixed White, and the Black Caribbean, and Gypsy Roma pupils, and draw implications for policy and practice. A number of reasons emerged from the data and literature reviews. The main findings from the empirical evidence showed that the rate of exclusions was highest for these groups compared to other main ethnic groups in England. It also shows that disproportionality in school exclusions for Black Caribbean pupils is a national problem in England. The evidence from the data and study interviews reveals the extent to which racial inequalities are still deemed to mark the lives of Black and ethnic minority students, particularly in English schools.This research confirms that there is a disproportionate rate of exclusion of Black Caribbean pupils in schools compared to their peers. This study has identified a range of factors involved here, including teachers’ low expectations, institutional racism, stereotyping, lack of effective training for staff on diversity and race issues, and a lack of diversity in the school and professional workforce.There is an urgent need to develop targeted initiatives to address all these areas in an integrated programme in order to reduce Black Caribbean exclusions from schools in England and Wales. Such exclusions are inevitably connected to later problems of social adjustment and lack of achievement and to perpetuating racist assumptions.

References Cassen, R., and Kingdon, G. (2007) Tackling low educational achievement.York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Coard, B. (1971) How the West Indian child is made educationally subnormal in the British school system: The scandal of the black child in schools in Britain. London: New Beacon for the Caribbean Education and Community Workers’ Association.

Ethnic disproportionality in exclusions  91

De Boer, H., Timmermans, A., and Werf, M. (2018) ‘The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers’ expectations and student achievement: Narrative review and metaanalysis’, Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 24(3–5): 180–200. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13803611.2018.155 0834 Demie, F. (2019a) ‘The experience of black Caribbean pupils in school exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi.10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F. (2019b). Educational inequality: Closing the gap. London: UCL IOE Press. Demie, F. (2019c) Exclusions of pupils from schools in England: Extent, causes and consequences: Research project brief. London: Lambeth School Research and Statistics Unit. https://www. lambeth.gov.uk/rsu/sites/; www.lambeth.gov.uk.rsu/files/school_exclusions_in_england_research_brief.pdf Demie, F., and McLean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean underachievement in schools in England. London: School Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA. Df E (2019a) Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England 2017–2018. London: Department for Education, 25 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixedperiod-exclusions-in-england-2017-to-2018; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/827876/Permanent_and_ fixed_period_exclusion_2017_to_2018_-_underlying_data.zip Df E (2019b) School exclusion: A literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children. London: Department for Education. Df E (2019c) Special educational needs in England: January 2019 technical document. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/814248/SEN_2019_Technical_document.pdf Donlevy, V., Meierkord, A., and Rajania, A. (2016) Study on the Diversity within the Teaching Profession with Particular Focus on Migrant and/or Minority Background. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.2766/015763 EHRC (2015) Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ is-britain-fairer-the-state-of-equality-and-human-rights-2015 Gillborn, D., and Mirza, H. S. (2000) Educational inequality: Mapping race and class. London: OFSTED. Gillborn, D., and Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform and equity, Buckingham: Open University Press. Guardian (1999) What is institutional racism? Stephen Lawrence, 24 February. https://www. theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/24/lawrence.ukcrime7 IPPR (2017) Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ making-the-difference-report-october-2017.pdf Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence inquiry. London: The Stationery Office. McKown, C., and Weinstein, R. S. (2008) ‘Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap’, Journal of School Psychology 46: 235–261. Parsons, C. (2009) ‘Explaining sustained inequalities in ethnic minority school exclusions in England—passive racism in a neoliberal grip’, Oxford Review of Education 35(2): 249–265. Runnymede Trust Research (2014) Fatherhood facts sheet. https://www.runnymedetrust.org/ projects-and-publications/appg/david-lammy-on-fatherhood.html Tenenbaum, H. R., and Ruck, M. D. (2007) ‘Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than European American students? A meta-analysis’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99: 253–273.

92  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Timpson, E. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf Villegas, A. M., and Irvine, J. J. (2010) Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. Urban Review 42(3): 175–192. Wright, C. (2010) ‘Othering difference: Framing identities and representation in black ­children’s schooling in the British context’, Irish Educational Studies 29(3): 305–320.

6 SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS DISPROPORTIONALITY IN SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS

Introduction The chapter aims to explore the factors associated with the over-representation of pupils with SEND in school exclusions. Researchers and educators have long debated and studied disproportionality in special education school exclusion and noted that the study of disproportionality in special educational needs in school exclusions has long been restricted by the availability of data (Demie 2019a, 2019b; House of commons 2018; Strand and Lindorff 2018; Strand and Lindsay 2009; Strand et al. 2014;Timpson 2019). It is now well known that SEN pupils in England are disproportionately represented within school exclusions figures. The national data show that pupils on SEN Support (0.34%) were around six times as likely as non-SEN pupils (0.06%) to be permanently excluded and SEN pupils with an EHCP (0.16%) just under three times as likely. Pupils with special educational needs were also five times as likely as those without to have a fixed period exclusion with pupils with EHCP (15.95%) and SEN Support (15.1%) having much higher rates than pupils with no SEN (3.36%) and also higher rates than other pupil characteristics examined. Many researchers have discussed the main reasons for the over-representation of SEN pupils in exclusions.These included pupil behaviour, rigid school policies, and socio-cultural factors outside the school’s control (see Demie 2019a, 2019c; Demie and McLean 2017; House of commons 2018; Strand and Lindorff 2018; Strand and Lindsay 2009; Strand et al. 2014). Other research also noted that a key factor influencing the attainment of SEN pupils is the extent to which they are excluded from school learning opportunities. SEN children are most likely to be excluded from school and also represent the most excluded group of pupils with SEN pupils in British schools (EHRC 2015). The most recent Df E statistics on exclusions show that Black Caribbean and SEN DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-9

94  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality TABLE 6.1  SEN pupil exclusions by pupil characteristics in schools in England, 2018

Permanent Exclusions (%)

Pupil Characteristics Special Educational Needs All Pupils

EHCP SEN Support No SEN All

0.16 0.34 0.06 0.10

Fixed Period Exclusions (%) 15.95 15.1 3.36 5.08

Source: Df E (2019a, 2019c)

are over-represented in both permanent and fixed-term exclusions (see Tables 6.1) (Df E 2019a, 2019b, 2019c).What is a concern is that SEN had the highest exclusion rates over the period? Pupils with special educational needs also showed a notable disparity in school exclusions than those without SEN. Pupils on SEN Support (0.34%) were around six times as likely as non-SEN pupils (0.06%) to be permanently excluded and SEN pupils with an EHCP (0.16%) just under three times as likely. Pupils with special educational needs were also five times as likely as those without to have a fixed period exclusion with pupils with EHCP (15.95%) and SEN Support (15.1%) having much higher rates than pupils with no SEN (3.36%) and also higher rates than other pupil characteristics examined. The most recent Df E statistics on exclusions by the largest ethnic group also show that Black Caribbean, Mixed White, and Black Caribbean and other Mixed race pupils with SEN are over-represented in both permanent and fixed-term exclusions (Table 6.2). What is a concern is that SEN had the highest exclusion rates over the period? The review of the data has already established that SEND pupils are disproportionately affected by exclusion, so gathering the views of SENCOs was crucial to understanding the reasons for over-representation and excluding pupils with special educational needs/disabilities. To understand the reasons for the over-representation of pupils with SEND pupils in school exclusions we asked during our study SENCOs, educational psychologists and governors and parents two broad questions: • •

What is your experience of school exclusion? What are the reasons for SEND pupils’ over-representation in exclusions?

The SENCOs and educational psychologists we interviewed have experience working with all types of SEN categories in schools, including autistic spectrum disorders (ASD); behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties (BESD); hearing impairment (HI); moderate learning difficulties (MLD); multisensory impairment (MSI); physical disability (PD); profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD); speech, language and communication needs (SLCN); specific learning difficulties (SpLD); visual impairment (VI); attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); and dyslexia. Significantly, all the parents interviewed had

TABLE 6.2  SEN pupil exclusions by ethnic background in England. 2018, percentage of population

No SEN Ethnic background

Source: Df E (2019c)

30493 17 3667 1325 152 715 2116 1149 4946 447 6769 446 1014 1664 3746 468 238 14450 16043 7363 23130 30493

Perm

Fixed

Cohort

Perm

4

416

1759 0 312 85 4 26 90 86 229 16 507 16 69 70 136 26 7 1318 441 863 896 1759

0 0

0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.004 0.04 0.01

3.05 1.96 1.97 1.12 1.28 1.57 0.59 1.29 0.45 0.39 1.92 0.43 2.14 0.84 2.00 0.97 2.38 1.04 1.36

SEN support Fixed

Cohort

77

4996 4.00 1088 896 25 111 305 230 755 35 1088 51 244 216 426 35 27 3152 441 1955 3041 4996

8.97 7.06 10.00 2.33 1.31 18.75 2.96 2.90 1.43 2.94 5.54 0.91 4.75 4.02 4.44

Perm 1 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.02

Fixed 241 50 9.82 6.08 5.41 5.90 4.35 3.05 3.31 1.23 4.17 2.82 3.85 5.55 3.58 7.16 3.32 4.75

SEN disproportionality  95

Number Gypsy/Roma Black Caribbean White and Black Caribbean Irish White and Black African Any other Mixed Any other Black White British White and Asian Black African Pakistani Portuguese Any other group Any other White Any other Asian Indian Boys Girls FSM Non-FSM All

Cohort

EHCP

96  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

the experience of exclusion, either because their own children had been excluded from school or as parent governors whose children had experienced difficulties in mainstream schools because of their SEND. They reported that they have children with ASD, ADHD, ODD, dyslexia, and children with and without SEN Support.

Factors associated with SEN disproportionality in school exclusions A number of reasons were given for over-representation of pupils with SEN during the case study interview including • • • • •

Behaviour difficulties. Lack of appropriate training and guidance for teaching of SEN pupils and behaviour management. Budget cut and lack of funding. Problems with teaching style in mainstream schools. Off-rolling.

Behaviour difficulties The first group that we interviewed to understand the factors associated with special educational needs exclusions was SENCO. The SEND Code of Practice (Df E 2015) requires governing bodies of maintained mainstream schools and the proprietors of academy schools (including free schools) to ensure that there is a qualified teacher designated as Special Educational Needs (SEN) coordinator (SENCO) for the school overseeing the day-to-day operation of the school’s SEN policy. Key roles of SENCOs include: • • • • •

Supporting the identification of children with special educational needs. Co-ordinating provision for children with SEN. Liaising with parents of children with SEN. Liaising with other providers, outside agencies, educational psychologists, and external agencies. Ensuring that the school keeps the records of all pupils with SEN up-to-date.

One key reason mentioned by SENCOs who were interviewed was behaviour: They struggle a lot with their learning and kids are not excluded for learning they are excluded for behaviour. If they are struggling with their learning what is the best way of letting people know I don’t know what I am doing? They misbehave. (SENCo, School A) One white boy he thumped a hole in a wall. Another white boy with SEMH grabbed another boy around the neck all the children who have been excluded

SEN disproportionality  97

though are black if you look at the proportion of pupils in the school, the majority are black. We have had a managed move for one white and one black child. But all the exclusions have been black. Only a small percentage of white. If they are struggling with learning their behaviour deteriorates. Then they get into bad habits of poor behaviour. I think a lot of it is frustration. They have got into a mind-set; this is who I am. (SENCo A) The problem with SEND currently is when they change the need they make it clear that behaviour is not a SEND. You have to make it clear that this behaviour is part of another problem. (SENCo B) In one secondary school, the SENCO described how someone was excluded because of social, emotional, and mental health issues: In my three years at my school we have been trying to put more in place before excluding. Someone was permanently excluded because she punched and kicked someone. To be honest, yes, they are black, but they have social, emotional, and mental health issues. Definitely a root cause of a lot of these difficulties. These children cannot handle their emotions because of things going on at home. They don’t want to talk about it. The school has wiped their hands of her. They will have informed the right people, but I do feel I would like to speak to her and find out what is going on. Her brother is in prison with gang affiliations. She tried to be happy – she was very loud; her background is the problem. (SENCo A) The school support uses a special unit and the impact on secondary schools of isolation is variable. Some pupils say ‘never again’ but the girl who was excluded yesterday was there many times. She’s had pastoral support, mentoring didn’t work. From September we are expanding our ‘well-being. (SENCo A) We noted the effects of pressure. For the younger children it is the home. At secondary, the pressure of GCSEs adds to that. (SENCo A) In a primary school, another SENCOs argued that it was mainly behaviour issues which led to exclusions. In our school it is mainly behaviour issues. (SENCo B)

98  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

We had a child with an EHCP and social services involvement with the family for alcohol, drugs, neglect – this child had lots going on. He was diagnosed with ADHD, ASD, and SEMH issues. His behaviour was so bad it couldn’t be managed. Dangerous things like climbing on top of cupboard and spitting on people, lashing out, running out of the building. At his annual review we said we couldn’t meet his needs and he needed a special school. This is very difficult. He ended up in a special school. We couldn’t manage the child’s needs. Social Services have been involved. (SENCo B) School D describes how they had to resort to a fixed period exclusion for behavioural reasons: We excluded one pupil for five days for a series of health and safety and behavioural issues that forced us to do this.We have been doing our utmost to work with him and his mum. We have had him from Reception. In Reception, he was hitting other children. We used resources from the PRU, and they observed him and gave strategies to the teacher which worked to a point. He has always been high profile. If he developed a particular relationship with a teacher, you were less likely to see a display of that behaviour. In Year 3 we thought the teacher would be good for him, but the relationship has broken down in part because the child has been disruptive all day.We have had to think of a range of different strategies. He has his own table with a range of activities to do. Recently he was diagnosed with ADHD, prior to that it was Oppositional Defiance Disorder. (Deputy head and SENCo D) He gets pastoral support and Mum gets support from a family welfare officer. We had an educational psychologist involved, the PRU and their GP.We have now sent for an EHCP. (Inclusion manager D) The SENCO in School E also raised problems they have encountered in the past with the LA SEN team: We have a child out of school who needed five or six adults including four men to take her to the toilet. She was 5 ft. 10" with an athletic build. We said we needed more funding to support this person. All the kids in her class are suffering. The head of this said, ‘Okay find her a school’. I went to the PRU and was there half a day. I met with an assistant headteacher, and he said yes. I spoke to the mother, and she said 40 minutes by taxi is too far. This child is in an adventure playground wearing our school uniform. They say they don’t have the resources. We are taking people in who have been out of

SEN disproportionality  99

school for years. No-one has asked us before, and we are the only specialist school in the borough. (SENCo, School E) The governors we interviewed also gave reasons why they felt SEND pupils were over-represented. Again, behaviour was raised, as well as lack of funding, complex family needs, and transition to secondary school where undiagnosed SEND caused issues. SEND are over-represented for different reasons, because a lot of headteachers feel that is the only way to get LAs to act on managed moves. The others are over-represented for reasons we have already discussed, families facing multiple challenges and gang culture. (Chair of Governors, School SM) Educational psychologists also raised a concern about over-representations of SEND pupils in exclusion. She argued in her experience working with schools there is a lack of recognising that the child has special educational needs in some schools.This is particularly a huge issue in secondary schools. Schools are not clued into the fact that pupils have special educational needs. It’s what you see rather than what is that communicating to us. Schools are operating on what they are seeing, how children should behave, so we know there’s a resource so let’s send them there to the PRU. Let’s spend money on the PRU rather than on the child.Those pupils happen to be boys and BAME boys. In a school there may be ten at risk pupils but only one ends up at the PRU. It’s not just ‘within the child’ factors such as ASD and finding it difficult to cope, and you try to get the parents involved – that’s two things and that child has just entered Year 3 and found transition difficult, that’s the third factor, but teachers’ expectations of a Year 3 child and you have all these difficulties and now they cannot manage the change of pace of the curriculum; there are so many contextual factors that need to be considered. (Educational psychologist E) We also asked the local authority inclusion team that was responsible for monitoring exclusions what were the reasons for exclusions of SEN pupils. Similar to the SENCOS in schools and educational psychologists they identified challenging behaviour as a main reason for SEND pupils’ exclusions and over-representation in school exclusions. It’s usually challenging behaviour, risky behaviour; one student has done something awful to another pupil. This needs to be explained that there are consequences. It’s not acceptable but they usually tell us something else has been put in place. For some children though, if you look at the history of their

100  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

home life you wouldn’t want to send them home. You wouldn’t want them there because they are more at risk there. One out-borough school we know lets a (Excluded) child come back at lunchtime to eat and lets him sleep at school to protect him. (LA head of SEN) Another team member felt that some schools’ behaviour policies are too rigid, and they adopt a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which did not take account of pupils’ individual needs: Sometimes schools are so rule-heavy they are not clicking that something isn’t right here, so they exclude rather than looking at what’s going on in the child’s life. (LA SEN co-ordinator A) The need for teachers to adapt their teaching style to take account of the particular challenges faced by some pupils was also identified: There are different teaching styles, and some pupils get on better with one teacher than another. It is up to teachers to adapt their teaching style. There are ways of doing this. A school is where they spend enough time and they become the key people to support that child. (LA SEN Co-ordinator A) It’s like an ice-berg – it’s what’s going on underneath. We feel like social workers, we are trying to resolve it all. A lot of these children need counselling and real help. Things will not change in a school until things change at home. There are no boundaries. (LA SEN Staff C) We asked why there was over-representation of pupils with SEND in school exclusion and the LA SEN head responded: Behavioural difficulties, the teacher’s understanding (teachers don’t go through SEND as part of their training), so they only learn on the job or when they have a child in their class. Parental influences that will impact on how that child accesses school. We do a lot of training of parents of children under five. We had a child with ASD whose parents had worked hard to get him to settle for five minutes so when he started nursery, he was able to sit on the carpet. If parents are on board, it makes a massive difference. There’s a lot that parents can do. Parenting courses we offer are for parents whose children have been given a diagnosis of Autism. We call it Parenting Class but really it’s more about parenting a child with Autism. (LA SEN Head)

SEN disproportionality  101

Persistent breaches of schools’ behaviour policy’; so, this encompasses such a wide range of incidences. Sometimes you are surprised that the school has kept them so long or in other instances you have really excluded for that? Or there are examples where a child brings a knife into school or a girl who had brought into school a key ring with a pair of plastic scissors from a cracker and she was permanently excluded for that. (LA inclusion team) Disruptive’ behaviour is a catch all in primary schools, or ‘this child is not school ready’. In September, we get lots of calls saying the child is climbing the walls, scratching, screaming, had no parenting or could be SEND, social/ emotional needs and at five years they are dumped on the school. (LA inclusion team) In looking for solutions to the difficulties schools experience in meeting the needs of pupils with SEND (especially those that do not have an EHCP), which can eventually lead to them being excluded, we asked whether there was a need for more special school places. The SEN team stated that they would rather see mainstream schools have resource bases because currently all the LA’s resource bases are full: From a parents point of view, it’s ideal – the best of both worlds having mainstream with a base. I would love to see a more therapeutic approach put into schools – somewhere for them to access straight away. (LA SEN Staff E) Overall, a point that was repeatedly raised during the research was that the underlying causes of the behaviours led to exclusion. Some children have extremely difficult and challenging behaviours that are outside the norm for their age. This is also suggested from the findings of the research into the behavioural disorders in children in Australian Victoria State Government which stated that: These problems can result from temporary stressors in the child’s life, or they might represent more enduring disorders. The most common disruptive behaviour disorders reported in the research include oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Parents interviewed also felt the majority of their children had a range of special educational needs, including Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Speech and Language Difficulties (SPLD), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). (Victoria State Government 2021:1) In our interviews, it was apparent that parents were extremely fearful because their children had been excluded from school. In each case, these were vulnerable youngsters because they had SEND but their needs had not been assessed adequately. Of concern

102  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

is that the parents with children with SEND in the case studies did not think that they were offered enough support by schools.They argued that exclusions had caused immense stress and mental health issues for themselves as parents and for their children.The concern in view of the parents, SENCOs, educational psychologist, and LA SEN inclusion staff was that the behavioural difficulties that led to exclusion weren’t properly explored, again often due to lack of resources and understanding?

Lack of appropriate training for teachers about SEN and behaviour management There is lack of training how to support SEN and ADHD pupils and behaviour management in the school as can be seen from the following quotations and comments by special educational needs coordinators. In part it is in not being able to cope or having the expertise and training. Teachers do their B.Ed. or whatever and they don’t have the training, so they cannot cope with children with SEND. It comes from the leaders in the school – it’s about your ethos in the school, if you are catering for the majority not the minority. (SENCo, School B) The majority of pupils in our school having difficulties have ADHD. If they were in a small class of eight pupils, they would cope better. (SENCo, School A) There is a part of me that says when a child has SEND, if a child can only sit for five minutes, it is important to educate the other children in the class about why this is the case. We have to try to change our mind-set. Over a period of time, it’s the culture you create within the class. In one class these pupils will behave well and not in another. It’s about relationships. (SENCo, School B) The assessment is part of the process but the day to day working with the child is the reality. If members of staff think a child hasn’t got a diagnosis, they will treat them in a particular way. When they get a diagnosis, they see the need to treat the child in a different way. (SENCo, School B) Education Psychologist we interviewed also mentioned the lack of training in behaviours management in schools as one of the key factors. They discussed the training and support they deliver when requested by the school and argued that: Teachers do not have training or skills to deal with pupils with emotional and social difficulties. (Educational psychologist G)

SEN disproportionality  103

The schools are the people who deal with this situation day in day out. It’s difficult for senior management to think straight when they are frustrated with a child’s behaviour – it acts as a blinker. This is where we come in, as we are able to stand back. (Educational psychologist H) The lack of training for teachers and consequent lack of understanding with regard to the needs of children with ADHD and SEN was highlighted also by a number of parents for overrepresentation of SEN pupils in schools. As we can see from the comments below many teachers and schools do not receive adequate SEND training and some schools have little awareness of ADHD. There’s a lot of internal exclusions, some parents have had to give up their jobs because at 9: 15 am they will have a call from the school saying, ‘come in and collect your child’. The stress of trying to get your child to a partner school when they have been excluded for a couple of days and the danger of losing their job if they do not arrive on time – the stress on families is huge. (Parent Governor D) I have spoken to so many teachers that don’t believe in ADHD they just believe it’s made up. I have even had a school nurse say this. If there’s no educational psychologist’s report they say, ‘where’s the evidence’? I have worked with parents in a very good school, but they resisted assessment. Parents of black boys in particular are worried they will be labelled. I was diagnosed 3 or 4 years ago with ADHD and my husband had undiagnosed autism. (Parent H) There is a problem with secondary schools particularly at KS3 because the primary schools have more of a relationship with parents and families, even talking to teachers at the end of the day. Suddenly at secondary you have nine teachers instead of one and the emphasis is behaviour.There is a much stricter behaviour policy.Your child will have a detention for not having a PE kit or forgetting books. If you have ADHD, you are going to do that. A child with ASD cannot deal with all the different relationships and they usually manage only Years 7 and 8 which is when the problems happen. (Parent A) A parent of a child with ADHD may really struggle to get to meetings on time because their concept of time is impaired. Time out for children with ADHD doesn’t work. A lot of behavioural strategies schools use don’t work for ADHD children. What works is a sense of competition, and they have a chance of winning. The concept of fear of punishment or rewards doesn’t work; teachers are using the wrong strategies. (Parent C)

104  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

All parents highlighted again the need for greater awareness in schools of the difficulties pupils are facing in their everyday lives, which affect their behaviour and their ability to organise themselves, particularly in secondary schools. Part E argued that not only is there lack of recognition of pupils’ individual needs, but the behaviour of pupils of Black Caribbean heritage is also seen by teachers as ‘threatening’ and boys in particular are treated more harshly than their white peers: With Black Caribbean pupils and mixed race, I am only saying this in relation to my own children’s experience (but this is not exclusive), those children even with ADHD and ASD their behaviour is seen as more threatening or intransigent than other children. There is a barrier; if a Black Caribbean or African child is misbehaving it is dealt with more harshly; boys in particular. The relationship between school and parent is more likely to be problematic. There is a cultural barrier even if there isn’t a language barrier. (Parent E) We asked questions about the support educational psychologists provide to help schools in behaviour management. They discussed the training and support they deliver when requested by the school and argued that: Teachers do not have training or skills to deal with pupils with emotional and social difficulties. (Educational psychologist G) The schools are the people who deal with this situation day in day out. It’s difficult for senior management to think straight when they are frustrated with a child’s behaviour – it acts as a blinker. This is where we come in, as we are able to stand back. (Educational psychologist H) The need for mainstream teachers to receive much more guidance and training for teaching children with SEND was again highlighted during our study. Head teachers perhaps need to go and see specialist provision. Initial teacher training needs to focus on SEND. (LA SEN Staff D) For a child with challenging behaviour they would benefit more from someone coming into train staff.

Austerity and funding cuts Respondents to our interview also raised acute financial pressures reducing support for SEN children at risk of exclusion in schools.

SEN disproportionality  105

The first was school leaders have faced cut drastically in their budget, and they reported that they have now limited d funding to support SEN pupils in schools. School leaders and governors blame austerity and funding cuts for a sharp increase in exclusions in schools. Cuts have consequences. There is now evidence that the curriculum is narrowing, teaching assistants and teacher numbers are falling in schools because of the cuts and austerity.With cuts biting so hard, schools do not have enough money to pay specialist tutors to work with challenging pupils. It has contributed to rising in the exclusion of children with challenging behaviours and SEN pupils. (Headteacher N) We are extremely concerned that this increase in exclusions is a result of the school funding crisis and cuts to local children’s services. (School Governor A) I hear from the staff at school that there is no one there to support the schools and families, because of budget cuts. (Chair of Governors R) Half of our teaching assistants (TAs) had been made redundant as a result of budget cut (SENCo A) Some schools are reluctant to take SEN children on a roll because of staff cuts (Governor D) Schools have had to cut back on the individual support they are able to give students, making it more difficult to provide early intervention and prevent behavioural problems from escalating. At the same time, council support services for vulnerable families have been cut back meaning that schools are having to pick up the pieces. (Governor F) Local authority services, such as behaviour support teams and specialist staff such as speech and language therapists, were disappearing, alongside cuts to funding for pupils with special education needs and disabilities. (Headteacher M) Overall, the evidence from our interview suggests that school leaders and governors are extremely concerned that the increase in exclusions is a result of the school funding crisis and cuts to local children’s services. There is no one there to support the schools and families, because of budget cuts. As a result, they argued schools have

106  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

had to cut back on the individual support they are able to give students, making it more difficult to provide early intervention and prevent behavioural problems from escalating. Of greater concern is that local authority services, such as behaviour support teams and specialist staff such as speech and language therapists, were disappearing, alongside cuts to funding for pupils with special educational needs and schools are having to pick up the pieces. We would argue that the issues that underpin exclusions reach far beyond the school gates. Schools can’t do it on their own. To avoid exclusions, they need support from the other local services around them. (Special Educational Needs Coordinators-SENCos) This support does not exist in many local authorities since the government introduced an austerity measure (Demie 2019a, 2019c). There is also evidence from the literature review that excluded pupils risk negative outcomes, including poor educational attainment, prolonged periods out of employment; poor mental and physical health; involvement in crime; and homelessness (Df E 2019a, 2019b; IPPR 2017; Parsons 2009; Timpson 2019). There were other issues faced by school including difficulty of transferring the costs for a challenging child to the LA through exclusion which have done sometimes when LA has funding. The government has sharply reduced funding for LA support services, resulting in destabilising reorganisations and reduced staffing. Schools feeling the pinch financially and struggling with a reduction in all services across the board and support systems were ‘increasingly turning to exclusion’ because they felt they had no other viable option. Some schools find it is cheaper to exclude a child than to put them in an alternative package. Schools feel they can’t afford to do actually what ought to be happening in terms of their SEN and their funded hours. As schools’ budgets reduce, schools … have less capacity and they’re certainly not up for buying in extra things. They’re struggling enough to keep the staff that they do have. (p.96) Our research evidence also highlighted the off-rolling of SEN children as one of the reasons for unofficial exclusions. The evidence from our research also shows that an increasing number of children in England are being off-rolled to game the school performance systems or to relieve financial pressure in schools. One parent from our case study schools explained that they are desperate to turn the school around and that schools were involved in off-rolling pupils which they called ‘extended study leave’: There were pupils they have decided to cull so the teachers can focus on those pupils who are more likely to pass. This could be near to 30 pupils who they predict wouldn’t get 5 A-C GCSEs in my son’s year.

SEN disproportionality  107

The headteacher in this school said to me: ‘I make no bones about it – I got rid of the disruptive pupils to focus our efforts on those pupils who will get through at GCSE.’ (Parent C) Another parent argued that Off-rolling SEN children is a huge problem to improve GCSE results and league table in a number of schools. (Parent D) Parents recognise that schools are under pressure to improve the school and the school self-evaluation plans they have put in place have to show a continued improvement in results across all cohorts, but particularly pupils who are vulnerable or disengaged. These schools adopt a one-size-fits-all approach and anyone who doesn’t fit in will probably leave as can be seen from the following comments of parents with SEN children. Sometimes I hear from headteachers or SENCos who say, we have one policy, and they have to abide by it, and we cannot be doing something different for this child. (Parent A) There is a big issue about children with SEND because they are more vulnerable, because the law offers protection, in reality they are being pushed out. Perhaps a headteacher doesn’t understand that this child’s behaviour is a direct result of their impairment. (Parent B) These experiences shared and echoed by parents are supported by views of school staff, educational psychologists, and special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) on the causes and reasons for the over-representation of Black and SEN pupils. Ofsted (2018) and EPI (2019) and a number of other researchers (Demie 2019a, 2019b; House of commons 2018; Strand and Lindorff 2018; Strand and Lindsay 2009; Strand et al. 2014) have also confirmed that reasons for over-representation and the incidence of off-rolling of SEN children as some schools continue to exclude to improve GCSE results. They argued that schools were using off-rolling as one of the reasons for unofficial statistics.

Conclusions There has been considerable concern among education policymakers, teachers, school leaders, parents, and communities about the over-representation of SEN pupils on school exclusions in England (Df E 2018; IPPR 2017; Parsons 2009; Timpson 2019). The recent national debate suggests that SEN disproportionality in exclusions is a concern. The review of previous research suggests that SEND

108  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

pupils represent the most excluded groups of pupils in British schools (Df E 2017; Df E 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; EHRC 2015; Gillborn and Youdell 2000; IPPR 2017; Timpson 2019). Despite long-standing concerns that those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) continue to be at greater risk of exclusion from school, there has been little research into the reasons for their over-representation in exclusions. A number of evidence emerged from the data case study. The main findings from the study show exclusion from school are widely used as a disciplinary tool, but there is concern that it might be applied disproportionately to certain groups of students.The empirical evidence showed pupils with SEND support were nearly six times as likely to be permanently excluded as those with no SEND, and about twice as likely to be excluded as those with ECHPs.The study also identified a number of reasons for the over-representation of SEND pupils in school exclusions, including: • • • •

Behaviour difficulties. Lack of appropriate training and guidance for teaching of SEN pupils and behaviour management. Budget cut and lack of funding. Off-rolling.

The evidence from our interview also suggests that school leaders, SENCO, teachers, and governors are extremely concerned that the increase in exclusions is a result of the school funding crisis and cuts to local children’s services. There is no one there to support the schools and families, because of budget cuts. The people interviewed argued that additional resources are required to explore alternative ways to work with a SEN child on the path to exclusion. This view is further supported by the recent report that suggested Many schools do not have the funding or the staffing to be able to provide intensive support to de-escalate issues and prevent exclusions.We heard that as funding has become increasingly tight, the support workers that would have been working with those children, assessing social, emotional, and special educational needs, are no longer available. Of greater concern is that local authority services, such as behaviour support teams and specialist staff such as speech and language therapists, were disappearing, alongside cuts to funding for pupils with special education needs and schools are having to pick up the pieces. (GLA 2018) Furthermore, there was a lack of teacher training around behaviours management which contributes to the over-representation of SEN pupils in school exclusions. There is also strong evidence that teachers’ and SENCOs’ training has not prepared them for understanding the behaviour difficulties that contributed to SEN pupils being disproportionately excluded. Teachers’ training and university lecturing of teachers, SENCOs, and educational psychologists have not prepared them

SEN disproportionality  109

in understanding SEN, race, and diversity issues, including how to handle the challenges that come with this in order to ensure that all students receive fair treatment.

References Demie, F. (2019a) ‘The Experience of Black Caribbean Pupils in School Exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F. (2019b) Educational Inequality: Closing the gap. London: UCL IOE Press. Demie, F. (2019c) Exclusions of pupils from schools in England: Extent, causes and consequences: Research Project Brief. London: Lambeth School Research and Statistics Unit. https:// www.lambeth.gov.uk/rsu/sites/; www.lambeth.gov.uk.rsu/files/school_exclusions_in_ england_research_brief.pdf Demie, F., and McLean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean Underachievement in Schools in England. London: School Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA. Df E (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years Statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. London: Department of Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/ SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf Df E (2017) Exclusion from maintained schools, academies, and pupil referral units in England: Statutory guidance for those with legal responsibilities in relation to exclusion. London: Department of Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-exclusion Df E (2018) Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England: 2016 to 2017. London: Department for Education, 19 July. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment data/file/726741/text_exc1617.pdf Df E (2019a) Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England 2017–2018. London: Department for Education, 25 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixedperiod-exclusions-in-england-2017-to-2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/827876/Permanent_and_ fixed_period_exclusion_2017_to_2018_-_underlying_data.zip Df E (2019b) School exclusion: A literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children. London: Department for Education. Df E (2019c) Special educational needs in England: January 2019 Technical Document. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/814248/SEN_2019_Technical_document.pdf EHRC (2015) Is Britain Fairer? The state of equality and human rights, Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-britain-fairer-the-stateof-equality-andhuman-rights-2015 EPI (2019) Unexplained pupil exits from schools: A growing problem? London: Education Policy Unit, April. https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EPI_Unexplained-pupilexits_2019.pdf Gillborn, D., and Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. GLA (2018) Preventing Secondary exclusions, Greater London Authority, Education Panel report, April. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/preventing_secondary_ school_exclusions_report.pdf House of Common Library brief (2018) Off-rolling in English schools, Number 08444, 10 December. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP8444

110  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

IPPR (2017) Making the Difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ making-the-difference-report-october-2017.pdf Ofsted (2018) Off-rolling: Using data to see a fuller picture, Blog Posted by: Jason Bradbury, June. https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/26/off-rolling-using-data-tosee-a-fullerpicture/ Parsons, C. (2009) ‘Explaining sustained inequalities in ethnic minority school exclusions in England - passive racism in a neoliberal grip’, Oxford Review of Education 35 (2): 249–265. Strand, S., and Fletcher, J. (2014) A quantitative analysis of exclusions from English secondary schools. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Education. Strand, S., and Lindorff,A. (2018) Ethnic disproportionality in the identification of Special Educational Needs (SEN) in England: Extent, causes and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University. Strand, S., and Lindsay, G. (2009) ‘Evidence of ethnic disproportionality in special education in an English population’, Journal of Special Education 43(3): 174190. Timpson, D. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf Victoria State Government (2021) Behavioural disorder in children, Department of health, Victoria State, Australia. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/ behavioural-disorders-in-children#bhc-content

7 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF SCHOOL EXCLUSIONS Ethnic and special educational needs disproportionality

Introduction There is much discussion about disproportionality in school exclusions, not only in England but internationally but what does the evidence show? The previous three chapters explored in detail the school experience in school exclusions, including ethnic and special educational needs (SEN) disproportionality in England from the perspective of teachers, governors, parents, SENCOs, and educational psychologists. This chapter will draw on the findings of the literature reviews to explore international experiences in school exclusions, in particular focusing on ethnicity and SEN disproportionality and use this to establish how England fares in comparison to elsewhere. This will then be used to draw conclusions on the final chapters how to tackle school exclusions and produce effective exclusion policies.

Experience in ethnic disproportionality There is now a growing body of research that has explored the reasons for over-­ representation and on what needs to be done to tackle disproportionality (Artiles 1998, 2003; Carlile 2012; Demie 2019a; Donlevy et al. 2016; Coutinho and Oswald 2000; Fenning and Rose 2007; Gillborn and Youdell 2000; Hemphill et al. 2010; House of Common Library brief 2018; IPPR 2017; Nichols 2004; Nicholas et al. 1999; Noltemeyer and McLoughlin 2010; Parsons 2011, 2009, 2008; Raffaele Mendez and Knoff 2003; Rudd 2014; Skiba et al. 2011, 2003, 2002; Strand 2012; Strand and Lindorff 2018; Strand and Lindsay 2009; Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007; Villegas and Irvine 2010; Wilson et al. 2020). Other national and international research such as the work of Armstrong 2018; Biggart et al. 2013; Cole et al. 2019; Cooper et al. 1991; Cresswell and Plano 2011; Daniels et al. 2019; De Boer et al. 2018; Duff et al. 2021; Eitle 2002; EPI 2019; Garner 2011; González 2011, 2014; DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-10

112  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Goodall 2018; Hemphill et al. 2013; Hemphill et al. 2017; McCluskey et al. 2008a, 2008b; McCluskey et al. 2019; Moore et al. 2019a, 2019b; Raffaele Mendez et al. 2002; Ruck and Wortley 2002; Skiba et al. 2005; Valdebenito et al. 2018, 2019; Wallace et al. 2009 also shows the reasons for disproportionality and overrepresentation in school exclusions and suspensions. In previous chapters, we set out to understand the underlying causes of the rise in school exclusions and the reasons for disproportionality over recent years.The RSA research also identified the following system-wide causes of school exclusion: •

Wider societal factors: growing poverty, rising incidence of mental health, increasing numbers of children with a social worker. • Direct consequences of deliberate policymaking: curriculum reform, real-terms cuts to school funding, reductions to funding for local authorities and public services working with children. • Unintended consequences of policy and practice decisions: perverse incentives caused by the accountability regime, fragmentation of the education system and a shift in behaviour management. (Partridge et al. 2020:73) There are several reasons for disproportionalities in school exclusions in the context of both England and international perspectives. Previous research shows that low expectations is the single most important factor identified in England and many teachers hold low expectations about Black children.White teachers can have lower expectations of Black students compared to White British and Asian students (see Demie 2019a; Demie and McLean 2017 and Gillborn and Youdell 2000). Other research by Tenenbaum and Ruck (2007) also found teacher expectations for Black students compared to White and Asian students in England.There is now a growing body of research that confirms teachers’ expectations of student matter, and they can underestimate the academic achievement of students of colour (see Donlevy et al. 2016; Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007;Villegas and Irvine 2010). Other studies also reported similar findings and argued that teachers’ low expectations were responsible for the underachievement in the USA for African American and Latino students compared to White Europeans (McKown and Weinstein 2008). Ennis studies further reported that African American students in the USA were academically well engaged in class where students perceived that their teachers had high expectations for them. His findings also suggested the students put less effort into classes where they believed that their teachers had low expectations of them. Some studies have argued that is an academic benefit to having a multi-ethnic workforce in schools that reflect the school population.The evidence so far suggests that when the teacher workforce represents different ethnicities equitably, and when Black students were taught by a teacher from the same ethnic background, BAME students do better than if they are taught by White teachers with a racist attitude or unconscious bias (Villegas and Irvine 2010).

International experience of exclusions  113

Another study in New Zealand study (Rubie-Davies et al. 2013) that looked into European and Asian students’ expectations compared to indigenous Māori suggests that teachers’ expectations of Māori are low and were high for European and Asian students w. He argued that ‘Teachers perform a crucial role in ensuring that the future for these students is as positive as possible, but they have low expectations of other ethnic groups with exception of White European.’ He argued for the need for high expectations for Māori students in New Zealand schooling. These low expectations of attainment are also reflected in exclusions, where there are clear differences by ethnic background. Another key factor highlighted from the literature is institutional racism. Racism has been argued as one explanation for the enduring nature of the disproportionate exclusion rate of Black Caribbean pupils (Demie 2019a; IPPR 2017). There is now growing research evidence that Black students are being subjected to institutional racism in English schools. This can undermine their chances of academic success (Macpherson 1999; Parekh 2000; Vincent et al. 2012). A number of other research findings also revealed teachers’ differential treatment of Black children in terms of low teacher expectations and in assessments made about the abilities of students. They suggest that teachers’ perceptions and expectations of black children’s behaviour often influence their decision to put back children in lower sets as opposed to their ability. Gillborn and Youdell (2000) research show that more than two-thirds of Black students in secondary school are taught separately in lower academic groups. Strand (2012) also suggested that Black Caribbean students are under-represented in higher tiers.There were few of them on entry to the higher tiers when compared to their White British peers. This has contributed to achievement gaps. He concluded that institutional racism by teachers is the main reason why they were not entering for top-tier exams. Gillborn (2002), a leading researcher on racism, also has put ‘institutional racism’ on the policy agenda. He argued in his professorial lecture that Institutional racism is ‘more subtle and extensive than is usually recognised and it has important consequences for how pupils are categorised by schools’ and are excluded from schools. His research suggests that that institutional racism is one of the key factors for the underachievement of Black Caribbean pupils and disproportionate school exclusions in England schools (Gillborn 2008). There is also well-established research evidence that demonstrate the negative impact of unconscious bias in education. Researchers have argued that teachers sometimes have ‘conscious or unconscious stereotypes and assumptions about minority groups and this can impact negatively on students’ achievements’ (Demie 2019a; Demie and McLean 2017; Maylor et al. 2009; Milliard et al. 2018). There is evidence that many White teachers are not aware of the negative impact of unconscious prejudice and stereotypes. As educators accepting the possibilities of unconscious bias that may be impacting our classroom is difficult to imagine but happens. The majority of research on unconscious bias in school has examined racial bias.

114  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

For example, researchers compared the difference in the predicted grades of White and Black teachers and the study found: When a black teacher and a white teacher evaluate the same black student, the white teacher is about 30 percent less likely to predict the student will complete a four-year college degree. White teachers are also almost 40 percent less likely to expect their black students will graduate high school. (Rosen 2016) A recent study (Demie 2019a, 2019b; Demie and McLean 2017) focused on inschool factors and maintained that schools exclude Black Caribbean pupils in circumstances where they would have been less likely to exclude a White pupil. The study suggested a number of reasons for the over-representation of Black Caribbean pupils in exclusion statistics, including racism, teachers’ low expectations, institutional racism, lack of diversity in the school workforce, and lack of effective training of staff on multicultural education, diversity, and race issues. It also suggested a wealth of research evidence that shows that Black Caribbean pupils are disciplined more harshly for less serious misbehaviour than other pupils. The UK research (IPPR 2017; Stamou et al. 2014;Wright 2010) also highlighted unconscious racist stereotyping in White teachers’ perceptions and discriminatory practices in the classroom as a result of institutional racism in schools, low expectations, and differential treatment of Black pupils, mainly those from Caribbean backgrounds. Poverty is also identified as another of the factors responsible for school exclusions. A number of researchers have argued that persistent socio-economic disadvantage of ethnic minorities has an additional negative impact on school exclusions and the outcomes of many BAME children (Cassen and Kingdon 2007; Demie 2019a, 2019b; Demie and McLean 2017). Low incomes, benefits, and the pressure of not having the money were seen to play their part, affecting the stability of family life. These findings are also supported by the Timpson Review (2019) that pointed out complex factors, including ethnic background, socio-economic status, and SEN background.Timpson argued that ‘Children may have a number of overlapping vulnerabilities such as poverty, SEN, which could all act as a multiplier effect and contribute to higher rates of exclusion’ (see Timpson 2019:35). However, the Timpson Review that controlled for other factors in the research evidence they used suggests that permanent school rates still remain high for the Black Caribbean compared to their White British peers. Past research in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland has also shown similar findings to England in terms of over-representation, and permanent disciplinary exclusion often has many negative long-term consequences for all aspects of young people’s lives (e.g., Daniels et al. 2003; Knipe et al. 2007; Munn et al. 2001; Power and Taylor 2021). It also confirmed that school exclusion is ‘associated with risk factors such as having a special educational need, being of Black-Caribbean origin, being from a low socio-economic background’ (McCluskey, Riddell, and Weedon 2016).

International experience of exclusions  115

Cole et al.’s (2019) study of school exclusions in the four jurisdictions of the UK also shows factors associated, including unhelpful government guidance and regulations, and school accountability frameworks affecting curriculum. The findings of the study confirms there is a neglect of special educational needs and; loss of local authority powers and funding that resulted in reductions in support services. One another finding from Northern Ireland literature is there has been little research on school exclusion compared to other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom over the last 30 years (Abbott 2006; Barr and Kilpatrick 1998; Barr, Kilpatrick, and Lundy 2000; Knipe, Reynolds, and Milner 2007; McGuckin and Lewis 2008). We would argue that in comparison to England, Scotland, and Wales the research on school exclusion in Northern Ireland is not as developed. There is research evidence, however, that they focused on the alternative provision of education after pupils have been excluded (Gallagher 2011; Kilpatrick et al. 2007). One of the key findings from the literature review of Northern Ireland was the relative lack of research into the area, with only a limited number of studies that have an explicit or singular focus on exclusion from school (Abbott 2006; Barr and Kilpatrick 1998; Barr, Kilpatrick, and Lundy 2000; Knipe, Reynolds, and Milner 2007; McGuckin and Lewis 2008). Generally, Northern Ireland’s research appeared less developed than England, Scotland, or Wales and often focused on the provision of education after pupils have been excluded from school, including alternative provisions (Gallagher 2011; Kilpatrick et al. 2007). Findings from the United States mirrored those already discussed above in both the UK and New Zealand, where suspensions and expulsions have long been also employed in schools to discipline students for disruptive behaviour. The research in the two countries shows the negative impact of such types of interventions on African American and American Indian and Hispanic students. There is ample evidence that students of colour disproportionately experience adverse disciplinary actions in school suspensions and expulsions in the USA. For example, the US Department of Education data (2016) showed African American students were at greater risk for disciplinary measures than White students. The data also confirmed that African American students were expelled at nine times the rate of White students in high school and five times more than White students in middle school. It also shows high rates of discipline for American Indian and Hispanic students in several categories (USA Dept Education 2016). Other research in the United States also showed that African American and Latino students are negatively affected by disproportionate exclusion rates in comparison to Whites and there is a racial bias and lower expectations of teachers to African Americans and Latinos (Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007). This research also suggested that teachers’ expectations vary with students’ ethnic backgrounds; White teachers were found to hold the highest expectations of European American students. As a result, Black students were three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their White peers (Raffaele Mendez and Knoff 2003; Rudd 2014).

116  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Similar findings have been observed outside of the Netherlands and Australia. Coskun et al. (2015) found that immigrant youths in the Netherlands were more likely to be excluded than their national peers. In Australia, an investigation into school expulsions found that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were disproportionality excluded from schools. Of particular concern in Australia is the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in Australian schools which have high rates of exclusions. For example, In Victoria, Hemphill (2010) found: A clear association between student reports of school suspension and arealevel SES, with lower levels of SES increasing the likelihood of students being suspended. (Hemphill et al. 2010:16) A Western Australia study by the Australian government also found that Aboriginal students were suspended at twice the rate of the total population from schools (Gardiner, Evans, and Howell 1995).The permanent exclusion rates for the state for aboriginal are students were four times as likely to be permanently excluded than non-indigenous students which is significantly very high compared to the school population. In Queensland also, indigenous students received a quarter of all fixedterm and permanent exclusions despite making up just over 10% of all Queensland’s full-time state school enrolments. In New South Wales State, the Aboriginal student was four times more of all short and long suspensions. This is despite this group representing just 8% of all student enrolments in the Australian state. In Victoria Sullivan et al. (2020) reported that: 6.5% of all expulsions were for Indigenous students, however, this group represents only 2.3% of the student population. (Sullivan et al. 2020:1) Overall evidence from Australian experience again confirmed that school exclusions are a challenge and there is disproportionality in terms of ethnic, socioeconomic, and SEN background. As concluding remarks, we would argue that there is now a wealth of research evidence that shows ethnic, race disproportionality in school exclusions is a concern. Overall, international research and a review of the literature show that school exclusions tend to disproportionately affect particular groups of students who are over-represented in the number of fixed-term and permanent exclusions relative to their size in the student population. This is not an issue only in England on which the book evidence is based but also in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia; research also concluded that students from particular racial backgrounds were disproportionately at risk of being suspended and excluded from school and there is well-founded evidence that disproportionately higher rates of exclusionary practices are applied to Black Caribbean students, Gypsy/Roma and Traveller pupils, Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils, boys, African American, Hispanic,

International experience of exclusions  117

Native America; Latinos; Aboriginal and indigenous minorities in Australia schools, as well as those with SEND and behavioural difficulties (see Demie 2019a, 2019b; McCluskey, Riddell, and Weedon 2016; Munn et al. 2001; Rubie-Davies et al. 2013; Skiba et al. 2016; Sullivan et al. 2020; Strand and Fletcher 2014).

Experience in SEN disproportionality Disproportionality in special education has also attracted considerable attention in a number of countries, including the UK, Australia, and the United States, in the last decades (see, e.g., Artiles 1998; Artiles 2003; Skiba et al. 2003; Strand and Lindsay 2009). There is now a wealth of research into the disproportionality of ethnic minority students and socioeconomic factors in special schools, at both a national and international level (Strand and Lindsay 2009).The literature in England suggests some social groups are over-represented in special schools. Of these, a larger than an average number of pupils eligible for free school meals have special educational needs. Other researchers have pointed out they have also recently used England’s National Pupil Database (NPD). Using NPD data, they examined the relationships between inclusion and attainment; ethnic disproportionality in SEN in England SEN and with other variables of interest, including ethnic background, FSM, gender, and type of SEN needs (Farrell et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2019; Strand and Lindorff 2018). The UK research overall suggested that Black Caribbean students were over-represented in special educational provision. One of the main reasons put forward for the over-representation in special education is related to social, economic inequality in England. Strand argued that this is not related always to teachers’ racism (Strand and Lindorff 2018; Strand and Lindsay 2009). Thompson et al.’s (2021) research also identified that pupils with social emotional and mental Health (SEMH) needs are disproportionately excluded in England. The review of existing literature highlights a number of potential factors which may be leading to the exclusion of pupils with SEMH in England, including the league table and standards agenda, limited resources, and fragmentation of the education system. Other research has also raised significantly higher rates of persistent absence, managed moves, early exits, and school changes and fears of hidden or illegal forms of exclusion of children with SEN, such as off-rolling and forced moves (see House of Commons Education Committee 2018; IPPR 2017; Ofsted 2018; Timpson 2019). Thompson (2017) also found that large numbers of pupils with SEN have left the state sector from both mainstream and special schools, with the highest proportion of those pupils leaving having behavioural, social, and emotional difficulties. Concerns about the over-representation of minority ethnic students have been also at the forefront of hdiscussions in special education in the United States. The data show the over-representation of African American students in the USA. African

118  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

American males were particularly disproportionately referred for special educational initiatives for learning problems compared to their peers (Skiba et al. 2003; Talbert-Johnson 1998). Handy (1999) argued in his research the main factors that influence behavioural management and school exclusion are racism, poverty, racism, and cultural differences between Black and White people in the USA. An in-depth qualitative study by Skiba et al. (2003) also suggested that it was the lack of classroom and behavioural management skills and language barriers that have resulted in over-representation. Other related findings revealed that teachers felt challenged, particularly in dealing with African American and Hispanic students with behavioural problems, and with insufficient resources to support these challenges. The overall evidence from the review of literature on international experience in school exclusions and suspension has raised concerns about disproportionalities of SEN and ethnic minorities and their peers. There is ample and persistent evidence that Black Caribbean, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, Gypsy/Roma pupils and Travellers of Irish Heritage pupils in England, and African American students in the United States and Indigenous ethnic minorities in Australia are excluded at a disproportionately higher rate than their White peers (Parsons 2010, 2009; Raffaele Mendez and Knoff 2003; Rubie-Davies et al. 2013; Skiba et al. 2011; Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007; Wilson et al. 2020). The same is true for SEN disproportionality. High rates of exclusion often lead to students’ disengagement from school and academic failure (Demie 2019a, 2019b; Demie and McLean 2017; Parsons 2010, 2009; Skiba et al. 2011;Villegas and Irvine 2010).

Conclusions This chapter draws on the finding from literature reviews on the international experience in school exclusions and suspensions. It also shows the factors in children’s education that lead to school exclusion. It investigates the reasons for ethnic and SEN disproportionality, as well as the policy and practice in place to tackle school exclusions. The main finding of the review suggests that racial and SEN disproportionality is a problem facing schools in the United Kingdom (Demie 2019a; Timpson 2019), the United States (Skiba et al. 2011, 2016; Wilson et al. 2020), Australia (Hemphill et al. 2010; Sullivan et al. 2020), and New Zealand (RubieDavies et al. 2013). Students of colour, particularly Black Caribbean, Mixed White, and the Black Caribbean, Black African American, Hispanic, Native American, Māori and Gypsy, and Irish travellers, have been shown with disproportionality in school exclusions. A number of factors were identified for disproportionality, including low expectations, poverty, racism, cultural differences between Black and White people, the lack of classroom and behavioural management skills, and language barriers (see also Gastic 2017; Nichols, Ludwin, and Iadicola 1999; Raffaele Mendez and Knoff 2003; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, and Peterson 2002; Skiba et al. 2011). It has been argued that teachers felt challenged, particularly in dealing with Black Caribbean, African American and Hispanic students with ‘behavioural

International experience of exclusions  119

problems,’ and there are insufficient resources to support these challenges. Many of the BAME school exclusions and suspensions are also because of lack of cultural awareness of the community the schools serve, miscommunications, racism, and negative stereotyping.What is also clear from the review of the pieces of literature in this area studies is that there is now growing evidence of the racialisation of school exclusion both in the UK and at the international level. This is a concern, and we would argue that ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions is an example of the current failure in policy in terms of school exclusion and education both in England and elsewhere. The same picture can be seen also is with SEN disproportionality. The review of existing literature found about 78% of permanent exclusions in England were issued to children who had special education needs (SEN), classified ‘in need,’ eligible for free school meals, or supported by social care (Timpson 2019). The review of available international literature for SEN disproportionality (see Demie 2019a, 2019b; Demie and McLean 2017; Parsons 2009; 2011; Raffaele Mendez and Knoff 2003; Rubie-Davies et al. 2013; Skiba et al. 2011;Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007;Villegas and Irvine 2010;Wilson et al. 2020) also highlighted a number of factors that have led to an over-representation of exclusions of pupils with SEMH need in England, such as the league table and standards agenda, limited resources, fragmentation of the education system, managed moves, off-rolling and forced moves, and lack of support/ understanding of behavioural, social, and emotional difficulties.

References Abbott, L. (2006) ‘Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 10 (6): 627–643. Armstrong, D. (2018) ‘Addressing the wicked problem of behaviour in schools’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 22(9): 997–1013. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2017.141373 Artiles, A. J. (1998) ‘The dilemma of difference: Enriching the disproportionality discourse with theory and context’, Journal of Special Education 32: 32–36. Artiles, A. (2003) ‘Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas on views of culture and space’, Harvard Educational Review 73: 164–202. doi: 10.17763/ haer.73.2.j78t573x377j7106 Barr, A., and Kilpatrick, R. (1998) ‘Exclusions from school: The why and wherefore’, Child Care in Practice 4(3): 229–239. Barr, A., Kilpatrick, R., and Lundy, L. (2000) ‘School exclusions: Lessons from Northern Ireland’, Education and the Law 12(3): 165–175. Biggart, A., O’Hare, L., and Connolly, P. (2013) ‘A need to belong? The prevalence of experiences of belonging and exclusion in school among minority ethnic children living in the white hinterlands’, Irish Educational Studies 32(2): 179–195. Carlile,A. (2012) ‘An ethnography of permanent exclusion from school: Revealing and untangling the threads of institutionalised racism’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 15 (2):175–194. Cassen, R., and Kingdon, G. (2007) Tackling low educational achievement.York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Cole, T., McCluskey, G., Daniels, H., Thompson, I., and Tawell, A. (2019) ‘Factors associated with high and low levels of school exclusions: Comparing the English and wider UK experience’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 24(4): 374–390.

120  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Cooper, P., Upton, G., and Smith, C. (1991) ‘Ethnic minority and gender distribution among staff and pupils in facilities for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties in England and Wales’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 12(1): 77–94. Coskun, B., van Geel, M., and Vedder, P. (2015), Exclusionary practices in secondary schools in the Netherlands: A comparison between students sent to out-of-school facilities and their non-referred peers’. Youth & Society 47(5): 615–633. doi: 10.1177/0044118X14546317 Coutinho, M. J., and Oswald, D. P. (2000) ‘Disproportionate representation in special education: A synthesis and recommendations’, Journal of Child, and Family Studies’ 9(2): 135–156. Cresswell, J. W., and Plano,V. L.. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed method research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daniels, H., Cole, T., Sellman, E., Sutton, J., Visser, J., and Bedward, J. (2003) Study of young people permanently excluded from school. London: Department for Education and Skills. Daniels, H.,Thompson, I., and Tawell, A. (2019) ‘Practices of exclusion in cultures of inclusive schooling in the United Kingdom’, Publicaciones 49(3): 23–36. De Boer, H., Timmermans, A., and Werf, M. (2018) ‘The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers’ expectations and student achievement: Narrative review and metaanalysis’, Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 24(3–5): 180–200. Demie, F. (2019a) ‘The experience of black Caribbean pupils in school exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F. (2019b) Educational inequality: Closing the gap. London: UCL IOE Press. Demie, F., and McLean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean underachievement in schools in England. London: School Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA. Department of Education, USA (2016) 2013–2014 civil rights data collection: A first look. Washington, DC: Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, December. https:// www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf Donlevy, V., Meierkord, A., and Rajania, A. (2016) Study on the diversity within the teaching profession with particular focus on migrant and/or minority background. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture Education and Training. doi: 10.2766/015763 Duff, G., Robinson, G., Gallagher, T., and Templeton, M. (2021) ‘School exclusion disparities in the UK: A view from Northern Ireland’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 26(1): 3–18. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2021.1900998 Eitle, T. L. M. (2002) ‘Special education or racial segregation: Understanding variation in the representation of Black students in educable mentally handicapped programs’, The Sociological Quarterly 43(4): 575–605. Eitle, T. M. N., and Eitle, D. J. (2004) ‘Inequality, segregation, and the overrepresentation of African Americans in school suspensions’, Sociological Perspectives 47: 269–287. EPI (2019) Unexplained pupil exits from schools: A growing problem? London: Education. Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., and Gallannaugh, F. (2007) ‘Inclusion and achievement in mainstream schools’, European Journal Special Needs Education 22: 131–145. doi: 10.1080/08856250701267808 Fenning, P., and Rose, J. (2007) ‘Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline; The role of school policy’, Urban Education 42(6): 536–559. Gallagher, E. (2011) ‘The second chance school’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (4): 445–459. Gardiner, J., Evans, D., and Howell, K. (1995) Suspension and exclusion rates for Aboriginal students in Western Australia. The Aboriginal Child at School 23(1): 32–35. doi: 10.1017/ S0310582200005034

International experience of exclusions  121

Garner, P. (2011) Promoting the conditions for positive behaviour, to help every child succeed Review of the landscape. National College for School Leadership (NCSL). https://dera.ioe. ac.uk/12538/1/download%3Fid%3D158591%26filename%3Dpromoting-the-conditions-for-positive-behaviour-to-help-every-child-succeed.pdf Gastic, B. (2017) ‘Disproportionality in school discipline in Massachusetts’, Education and Urban Society 49(2): 163–179. Gillborn, D. (2002) Education and institutional racism, inaugural professorial lecture. London: University of London, Institute of Education. Gillborn, D. (2008) Racism and education: Coincidence or conspiracy? London: Taylor and Frances press. Gillborn, D., and Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. González, T. (2011) ‘Restoring justice: Community organizing to transform school discipline policies’, U.C. Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy 15(1): 9–10. González, T. (2014) Addressing racial disparities in school discipline: Restorative alternatives to exclusionary practices in schools. In: D. Losen (Ed.) Closing the school discipline gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Goodall, C. (2018) ‘Mainstream is not for all: The educational experiences of autistic young people’, Disability & Society 33(10): 1661–1665. Handy, A. J. (1999) Ethnocentrism and black students with disabilities: Bridging the cultural gap, volume I. New York, NY:Vantage Press. Hemphill, S. A., Broderick, D., and Heerde, J. (2017) Positive associations between school suspension and student problem behaviour: Recent Australian findings. https://aic.gov. au/publications/tandi/tandi531 Hemphill, S. A., and Hargreaves, J. (2010) School suspensions. A resource for teachers and school administrators. Melbourne: Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Smith, R., Toumbourou, J. W., and Catalano, R. F. (2013) ‘Does school suspension affect subsequent youth nonviolent antisocial behaviour? A longitudinal study of students in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States’, Australian Journal Psychology 65(4): 236–249. doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12026 Hemphill, S. A., Toumbourou, J. W., Smith, R., Kendall, G. E., Rowland, B., Freiberg, K., and Williams, J. W. (2010) ‘Are rates of school suspension higher in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods? An Australian study’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia 21(1): 12–18. House of Common Library brief (2018) Off-rolling in English schools, Number 08444, 10 December. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP8444 IPPR (2017) Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ making-the-difference-report-october-2017.pdf Kilpatrick, R., McCartan, C., McAlister, S., and McKeown, P. (2007) ‘If I am brutally honest, research has never appealed to me … The problems and successes of a peer research project’, Educational Action Research 15 (3): 351–369. Knipe, D., Reynolds, M., and Milner, S. (2007) ‘Exclusion in schools in Northern Ireland: The pupils’ voice’, Research Papers in Education 22(4): 407–424. doi: 10.1080/02671520701651060 Liu,Y., Bessudnov, A., Black, A., and Norwich, B. (2019) ‘School autonomy and educational inclusion of children with special needs: Evidence from England’, SocArXiv. doi: 10.31235/osf.io/ y7z56 Macpherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence inquiry. London: The Stationery Office.

122  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Maylor, U., Smart, S., Kuyok, K. A., and Ross, A. (2009) Black children’s achievement programme evaluation. London: Department for Children and Schools. McCluskey, G., Cole, T., Daniels, H, Thompson, I., and Tawel, A. (2019) ‘Exclusion from school in Scotland and across the UK: Contrasts and questions’, British Educational Research Journal 45 (6): 1140–1159. McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Stead, J., Riddell, S., and Weedon, E. (2008a) ‘Can restorative practices in schools make a difference?’ Educational Review 60(4): 405–417. McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Stead, J., Kane, J., Riddell, S., and Weedon, E. (2008b) ‘I was dead restorative today’: From restorative justice to restorative approaches in school’, Cambridge Journal of Education 38: 199–216. McCluskey, G., Riddell, S., Weedon, E., and Fordyce, M, (2016) ‘Exclusion from school and recognition of difference’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37 (4): 529– 539. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2015.1073 McGuckin, C., and Lewis, C. A. (2008) ‘Management of bullying in Northern Ireland schools: A pre-legislative survey’, Educational Research 50(1): 9–23. McKown, C., and Weinstein, R. S. (2008) ‘Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap’, Journal of School Psychology 46: 235–261. Milliard, W., Brown-Viner, K., Baars, S., Tretheway, A., and Menzi, L. (2018) Boys on track improving support for Black Caribbean and free school meal eligible white boys in London A research report. London: Greater London Authority (GLA). https://www.london.gov.uk/ sites/default/files/lkmco_boys_on_track_report.pdf Moore, D., Benham-Clarke, S., Kenchington, R., Boyle, C., Ford, T., Hayes, R., and Rogers, M. (2019a) Improving behaviour in schools: Evidence review. London: Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Improving_ Behaviour_in_Schools_Evidence_Review.pdf Moore, D., Benham-Clarke, S., Kenchington, R., Boyle, C., Ford, T., Hayes, R., and Rogers, M. (2019b) Improving behaviour in schools: Evidence review. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Munn, P., Cullen, M., Johnstone, M., and Lloyd, G. (2001) ‘Exclusion from school: A view from Scotland of policy and practice’, Research Papers in Education 16(1): 23–42. doi: 10.1080/02671520122821 Nichols, D., Ludwin, G., and Iadicola P. (1999) ‘A darker shade of Gray: A year-end analysis of discipline and suspension data’, Equity & Excellence in Education 32: 43–55. Nichols, J. D. (2004) ‘An exploration of discipline and suspension data’, The Journal of Negro Education 73(4): 408–423. Noltemeyer, L., and McLoughlin, S. (2010) ‘Changes in exclusionary discipline rates and disciplinary disproportionality over time’, International Journal of Special Education 25(1): 59–70. Ofsted (2018) Off-rolling: Using data to see a fuller picture, Blog Posted by: ason Bradbury, June. https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/26/off-rolling-using-data-to-seea-fullerpicture/ Parekh, B. (2000) The future of multi-ethnic Britain: Report of the commission on the future of multiethnic Britain, profile books. London: The commission on the future of multi-ethnic Britain. ISBN 1-86197-227-X. Parsons, C. (2008) ‘Race relations legislation, ethnicity and disproportionality in school exclusions in England’, Cambridge Journal of Education 39 (3):401–419. Parsons, C. (2009) ‘Explaining sustained inequalities in ethnic minority school exclusions in England—passive racism in a neoliberal grip’, Oxford Review of Education 35(2): 249–265. Parsons, C. (2010) ‘Achieving zero permanent exclusions from school, social justice and economy’, FORUM 52(3): 395–404. www.wwwords.co.uk/FORUM

International experience of exclusions  123

Parsons, C. (2011) Strategic alternatives to exclusions from schools, London: Trentham Book Publishers. Partridge, L., Strong, F., and Lobley, E. (2020) Pinnball Kids: Preventing school exclusions, RSA. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/reports/2020/the-rsa-pinball-kids-preventingschool-exclusions.pdf Power, S., and Taylor, C. (2021) ‘School exclusions in Wales: Policy discourse and policy enactment,’ Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 26(1): 19–30. Raffaele Mendez, L. M., Knoff, H. M., and Ferron, J. M. (2002) ‘School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically diverse school district’, Psychology in the Schools 39: 259–277. Raffaele Mendez, L. M., and Knoff, H. M. (2003) ‘Who gets suspended from school and why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school district’, Education and Treatment of Children 2: 30–51. Rosen, J. (2016) Teachers expectations reflect racial bias, John Hopkins University. https://hub. jhu.edu/2016/03/30/racial-bias-teacher-expectations-black-white/ Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E., Flint, A., Garrett, L., McDonald, L.,Watson, P., and O’Neill, H. (2013) ‘Investigating teacher expectations by ethnicity in New Zealand’, The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences 69: 256–261. Ruck, M. D., and Wortley, S. (2002) ‘Racial and ethnic minority high school students’ perceptions of school disciplinary practices: A look at some Canadian findings’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence 31: 185–195. Rudd,T. (2014) Racial disproportionality in school discipline. Ohio: Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., and Tobin, T. (2011) ‘Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline’, School Psychology Review 40(1): 85–107. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., and Peterson, R. (2002) ‘The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment’, Urban Review 34(4): 317–342. Skiba, R., Ormiston, H., Martinez, S., and Cummings, J. (2016). ‘Teaching the social curriculum: Classroom management as behavioral instruction’, Theory Into Practice 55(2): 120–128. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148990 Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Feggins-Azziz, L. R., and Chung, C. (2005) ‘Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education?’ Journal of Special Education 39(3): 130–144. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., Henderson, M., and Wu, T. (2003) The context of minority disproportionality: Local perspectives on special education referral. A status reports. Indiana University: Indiana Education Policy Centre. Stamou, E., Edwards, A., Daniels, H., and Ferguson, L. (2014) Young people at-risk of dropout from education: Recognising and responding to their needs. Oxford: University of Oxford. https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/content/user/4508/Stamou%20et%20al%20-%20 Literature%20review%20-%202014.pdf Strand, S. (2012) ‘The White British-Black Caribbean achievement gap: Tests, tiers, and teacher expectations’, British Educational Research Journal 38(1): 75–101. Strand, S., and Fletcher, J. (2014) A quantitative analysis of exclusions from English secondary schools. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Education. Strand, S., and Fletcher, J. (2015) A quantitative longitudinal analysis of exclusions from English secondary schools. Oxford: Education Department. http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Exclusion-from-Secondary-schools_small.pdf

124  Ethnic and SEN disproportionality

Strand, S., and Lindorff,A. (2018) Ethnic disproportionality in the identification of Special Educational Needs (SEN) in England: Extent, causes and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University. Strand, S., and Lindsay, G. (2009) ‘Evidence of ethnic disproportionality in special education in an English population’, Journal of Special Education 43(3): 174190. Sullivan, A., Tippett, N., Johnson, B., and Manolev, J. (2020) ‘Understanding disproportionality and school exclusions, school exclusions study key issues paper no. 4’, University of South Australia. https://www.schoolexclusionsstudy.com.au/application/files/ 3816/0205/0967/Key_Issues_Paper_4_School_Exclusions_Study_Disproportionality_ 30092020.pdf Talbert-Johnson, C. (1998) ‘Why so many African American children in special education?’, School Business Affairs 64(4): 30–35. Tenenbaum, H. R., and Ruck, M. D. (2007) ‘Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than European American students? A meta-analysis’, Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 253–273. Thompson, D. (2017) Who are the pupils in alternative provision? London: FFT. https://ffteducationadatalab.org.uk Thompson, I., Tawell, A., and Daniel, H. (2021) ‘Conflicts in professional concern and the exclusion of pupils with SEMH in England’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 26(1): 31–45 doi: 10.1080/13632752.2021.1898769 Timpson, E. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, P., Ttofi, M., and Sutherland, A. (2018) ‘School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review’, Campbell Systematic Reviews 14(1): 1–216. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322397442_ School-based_interventions_for_reducing_disciplinary_school_exclusion_a_systematic_ review Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, P., Ttofi, M., and Sutherland, A. (2019) ‘What can we do to reduce disciplinary school exclusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Experimental Criminology 15(3): 253–287. doi: 10.1007/s11292-018-09351-0 Villegas, A. M., and Irvine, J. J. (2010) ‘Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments’, Urban Review 42(3): 175–192. Vincent, C., Rollock, N., Ball, S., and Gillborn, D. (2012) The educational strategies of the black middle classes. https://www.routledge.com/The-Colour-of-Class-The-educationalstrategies-of-the-Black-middle-classes/Rollock-Gillborn-Vincent-Ball/p/book/ 9780415809825 Wallace, J., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C., and Bachman, J. (2009) ‘Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline among U.S. high school students: 1991–2005’, Negro Educational Review 59(1–2): 47–62. Wilson, M., Yull, G., and Massey, S. (2020) ‘Race and the politics of educational exclusion: Explaining the persistence of disproportionate disciplinary practices in an urban school district’, Race Ethnicity and Education 23(1): 134–157. Wright C. (2010) ‘Othering difference: Framing identities and representation in black children’s schooling in the British context’, Irish Educational Studies 29(3): 305–320.

PART IV

What are the lessons for those concerned with school exclusions?

8 TACKLING EXCLUSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

In the final chapter, we address one of the main questions that motivated this book  – what are the main lessons and issues from school exclusions in England and elsewhere? – by summarising the key findings. The first section of this chapter will explore the lessons in tackling school exclusions by looking a wide range of approaches that are covered in the literature to prevent exclusion. The second section will provide conclusions of the key findings from research into school exclusions, exploring the extent to which it is possible to generalise from the study and the literature reviews. How significant is the issue of racism in exclusions, both in Britain and elsewhere? This will be followed by implications of the findings for policy and practice as well as pointing the way for further research.

Lessons for tackling school exclusions In general, the body of available English research suggests most of the previous studies focus on the reasons for exclusions, as well as the causes and consequences of school exclusions. Despite this, the existing evidence does provide some useful learning about the range of approaches and practices related to preventing exclusion. In recent years, the need for detailed case studies of schools that have successfully tackled school exclusions has become apparent as a means of increasing our understanding of the ways in which schools can tackle school exclusions. For these reasons, a number of British studies looked at examples of schools that provide an environment in which pupils flourish without taking the drastic action of suspension and exclusions. The lessons from this research confirm that the successful case study schools have bucked the national trends by rarely, if ever, excluding pupils. We would argue that the need for evidence of what works in tackling school exclusions and suspension is crucial if we have to rise to the challenge outlined above. On the whole, while we have extensive evidence of the rise in school DOI: 10.4324/9781003264019-12

128  What are the lessons for those concerned

exclusions including ethnic and SEN disproportionality, there is little research evidence on what works to improve behaviour and tackle school exclusions in England and elsewhere. Given the paucity of robust evidence about the impact on reducing school exclusions in the context of the UK, we have used the findings of the Df E literature review (2019a, 2019b) and RSA’s own ‘Pinball Kids’ research project (2021), and Demie and McLean’s (2017) research into what works tackling school exclusions and Moore et al.’s (2019) research into improving behaviour in schools on behalf of EEF in the context of England. There are a number of reasons why the schools are bucking the national trends and successfully managing school exclusions. For example, the research by Demie and McLean (2017:67–82) on tackling school exclusions in England identified the following factors that proved successful in tackling school exclusions and suspensions: •

•

A strong leadership team that is committed to diversity and race equality – In these schools leaders demonstrated an acute awareness of the challenging circumstances many pupils experience and they have endeavoured to create safe and secure environments, where pupils are regarded as assets and are shown respect. Pupils have at least one named member of staff that they can go to when they are experiencing difficulties that might get out of hand and lead to more serious consequences. There is tight planning and communication systems have been established to ensure that there is consistency in approach – thus minimising confusion or misunderstanding. Shared vision, Ethos, and Values – These schools have effective shared vision, ethos, and values to minimize school exclusions. They recognise many students are struggling with social and emotional tensions, owing to the challenging circumstances of their lives. The areas in which they live are subject to some of the urban ills that often characterises poorer communities. Therefore, the development of a clear vision of where the school is going has been central to the transformational approach adopted by the leadership in these schools – that is, shared vision rather than supervision, which provides for the coordination of individual efforts. Success schools have a ‘no excuses’ culture, and an aim that every single child will succeed, and staff embody this ethos through their determination, resilience, and perseverance. At the heart of this is a rigorous and fully comprehensive inclusion system. In the belief that there are no barriers to learning that cannot be overcome, leaders identify any potential obstacles and remove them through supporting children and their families both in and out of school. Enriched by the diversity of its staff and pupils, each school has built a culture in which individuals at all levels enjoy a degree of autonomy in relation to their roles, and are bringing their own knowledge, skills, and creativity to bear in resolving problems and pursuing opportunities. Successful schools should underline the importance of vision building and communication as a basis for empowerment and as a stimulus for participation at all levels.

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  129

•

•

•

•

•

Well-developed effective teachers CPD – Teachers’ professional learning is a feature of these schools’ investments with a significant proportion of the budget in one school spent on CPD. Post-graduate qualifications are pursued by teachers and they take a research-based approach to develop practice.Another effective approach is to train staff to recognise symptoms of childhood trauma, for example as a result of challenging home environments, knife crime, gangs, etc., within their students’ neighbourhoods. Use of innovative inclusive curriculum – They recognise the need to develop a curriculum that reflects the reality of pupils’ lives. Successful schools use innovative and engaging learning opportunities which convince pupils that learning can be fun and memorable. Above all it has relevance to the lives of pupils. Enriched by opportunities to be creative, gain confidence and develop their self-esteem, pupils enjoy visits to museums, galleries, theatres, and visits from well-known artists and performing companies. Use of effective inclusion strategy and practice – Effective schools are fully inclusive schools, staff is wholly committed to providing equal opportunities for all pupils. They are also committed to overcoming barriers to learning and meeting any special educational need to ensure that all pupils make good progress. They recognise that negative behaviour is often a consequence of social, emotional, mental health issues or trauma, which pupils find difficult to communicate. Considerable investment is made in pastoral support, with much skilled non-teaching support staff, with their ability to personalise learning, to address the issue of exclusion. Many problems of extreme behaviour arise because of students’ difficulty in accessing the curriculum which, in turn, can be linked to inadequate literacy and lack of success. Successful schools respond with a focus on relationships, providing early interventions, restorative justice, and support for learning. Inclusion is at the heart of everything the schools do, ensuring that pupils feel they are included academically and socially’ and early intervention is key to the school’s approach in preventing school exclusion. Use diverse multi-ethnic workforce – There is a great diversity in the workforce in the case study schools in terms of the range of roles, skills, and ethnicity. They have recruited good quality teaching and non-teaching staff that reflect the languages, cultures, ethnic backgrounds, and faiths of the pupils in the school. Successful schools also pride themself on recruiting from the local community and this has sent a strong message to the community that they are valued and has helped the schools to become a central point of the wider community and has built trust. Teaching assistants are great and play a key role in communicating with parents and supporting pupils. Providing excellent care and guidance of pupils – successful schools provide exceptional care and guidance for pupils and they make every effort to meet the individual and often complex needs of children when they enter school including ADHD and child mental health needs.

130  What are the lessons for those concerned

•

•

Use effective targeted Intervention and support – carefully targeted support has a significant impact in preventing the exclusion of pupils. Schools’ intervention and targeted support strategies are effective because they are driven by pupils’ academic, emotional, and social needs. Successful schools do have an excellent range of interventions to break down barriers for children with SEND and support them to be able to access the curriculum within their classroom. Effective behaviour policy that is based on inclusion in mind – It ensures that the behaviour policy does not discriminate against pupils on the grounds of race, gender, SEND or sexual orientation. (Demie and McLean 2017:67–82)

The literature review also recognised other studies which identified promising practices: •

Create a positive school ethos and culture to guide and support staff in understanding, identifying, and managing behaviour in positive ways. • support families and children, using high-quality external provision as indicated • focus on intervening early before problems become entrenched. • provide some pupils with ‘targeted’ support. This may include some respite from mainstream classes, and/or specialist one-to-one tuition or counselling. (Graham et al. 2019:8) Similarly, the Department for Education (Df E 2019a)-commissioned literature review on school exclusion found that evidence on what works through effective use of inclusive and nurturing education. This approach aims to support all pupils to thrive in mainstream schools, to develop the social and emotional capabilities necessary for lifelong flourishing and, implicitly seeks to reduce unnecessary exclusions. The Df E literature review claimed that the existing evidence does provide some useful learning about the range of approaches and practice related to preventing exclusions in different contexts through fostering inclusive and nurturing schools. The Df E literature review named the following key features of inclusive practice: • A positive school ethos and culture that guides and supports staff in understanding, identifying, and managing behaviour in positive ways. • Support to families and children, using high-quality external provision where needed. • A focus on intervening early before problems become entrenched. • Targeted support to some pupils through effective use of one-to-one tuition or counselling. (DfE 2019a:8)

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  131

The RSA’s ‘Pinball Kids’ research project by Partridge et al. (2020) also shows the negative aspect of school exclusions and how vulnerable children are disproportionately represented in special educational needs. The research identified the following five conditions necessary for change to support to tackle school exclusions and suspension: • • • • •

Every child has a strong relationship with a trusted adult in school. All child’s parents or carers are engaged as partners in their education. Every child attends a school with an inclusive ethos. Every child is assessed for learning and other needs throughout their school career and there is the capacity to provide appropriate support. We know where every child is in the system to ensure they can benefit from the four conditions above. (Partridge et al. 2020:5)

This research also shows the key to preventing damaging school exclusions is building stronger relationships between students and teachers or school staff and effective use of targeted interventions and support through one-to-one support, small group, and pastoral care. The lessons from the case study in England suggest that schools can make a difference in tackling school exclusions. One other key recommendation of the RSA’s Pinball report by Partridge (2020) was to invest in multi-agency teams education, social work, youth work, mental health, and police professional working together to provide and support children at risk of exclusions beyond the school gate. There is also other literature evidence on trauma-informed practice that tells us that through a trauma-informed approach, it is possible to teach social and emotional learning that will support a child to thrive. For example, EEF’s review Improving Social and Emotional Learning in Primary Schools (2019) suggested effective social and emotional learning interventions, which include: Teaching social and emotional learning skills through whole school ethos and activities’ amongst others can support positive relationships, mental health and lead to learning gains of +4 months over the course of a year. The EEF evidence also highlighted There is a strong evidence base that teacher–pupil relationships are key to good pupil behaviour and that these relationships can affect pupil effort and academic attainment. (Durrington school report 2019:1) A review of literature on restorative approaches to addressing challenging behaviours seeks to address conflicts and tension by repairing challenging relationships/or behaviours. It suggests that schools that use restorative approaches can create a more inclusive atmosphere and address challenging behaviours in a non-punitive way (see Moore, Benham-Clarke, Kenchington, Boyle, Ford, Hayes, and Rogers 2019).

132  What are the lessons for those concerned

A report on restorative approaches in primary schools (2008) found that the Royal Academies–trained schools reduced fixed-term exclusions by just over half (51%). It also shows how the restorative approach helped to improve the child’s behaviour within the school and provide positive messages for both the staff and pupils. The RSA’s own ‘Pinball Kids’ (2021) report recommends that every pupil should have at least one supportive and positive relationship with a member of the school staff.This is particularly important for at-risk pupils who may have traumatic, unstable adult relationships in their home lives or associate relationships with school staff to negative interactions around discipline. Parsons’s (2009) study also examined how committed local authorities along with their communities can successfully reduce or eliminate permanent exclusions. This study was as part of The Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from a School project and focussed on three low-excluding LAs and five high-excluding LAs. Its main objective was to explore whether permanent or fixed period exclusions should become unnecessary in the study LAs. The finding of the study shows that all schools had reduced their rates of school exclusions with support, coordination, and brokered by the local authority (LA) or through local partnerships. On the basis of this empirical evidence Parsons (2009) suggested ‘Zero exclusion schools are possible’ and local authorities have a powerful influence in tackling school (Parsons 2009:395). He gave reasons for reduction in school exclusions to the work of the LA and its strategic developments including: •

eShared commitment across schools and LA members and officers working with explicit principles and procedures • Broadening the school by making more diverse and multi-level provision in schools • Building bridges so that managed moves can be organised, and school clusters can share the responsibilities • Alternative provision involves finding or making a place for every child • Joining up the dots to make multiagency work effective • Ethos, attitudes and sharing a vision, working at hearts and minds to gain ­support for including all children and responding to all needs. (Parsons 2009:402) Recent RSA (2021) studies as part of developing an inclusive and nurturing schools toolkit also provides good practice in tackling school exclusions in England. The RSA defined an inclusive and nurturing education ‘as one supporting pupil to thrive in mainstream schools, develop the social and emotional capabilities necessary for lifelong flourishing, and to reduce unnecessary exclusions’ (RSA 2021:25). The toolkit highlights commonly occurring features of the inclusive and nurturing practice that demonstrated some evidence of positive impact on inclusion and learner outcomes for all pupils, targeted groups of pupils, and staff members. The case studies were developed from interviews with school leaders and practitioners from eight case studies schools, multi-academy trusts, and local authorities. Key

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  133

recommendations of the RSA research findings and toolkit for all pupils include the use of trauma-informed practice, consistent and restorative approaches to addressing challenging behaviour, and a strong focus on relational practice. Their findings also highlighted how early identification, counselling, and therapeutic support, engaging with families, multi-agency and community sector response and academic engagement and support, use of staff teacher networks, and inclusive school leadership helped in reducing school exclusions for targeted groups and all pupils in the school and local authorities (RSA 2021). There is a lack of research into successful schools in the United States in tackling school exclusions. Much of the research focuses on the causes and consequences of exclusions, including the over-representation of African Americans and Latinos on school exclusions compared to White pupils (see Gastic 2017; Nichols, Ludwin, and Iadicola 1999; Raffaele Mendez, and Knoff 2003; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, and Peterson 2002; Skiba et al. 2011). However, Valdebenito et al. (2018) carried out research to examine the impact of interventions to reduce exclusions from school. The review covered 37 studies with thirty-three studies from the United States and four elsewhere. The findings of the study show that Four intervention types – enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers – had significant desirable effects on exclusion. (Valdebenito et al. 2019:1) The evidence from Valdebenito et al. (2019) shows that it is effective at reducing expulsion in school exclusion in the short term. Restorative approaches to school discipline are used throughout the United States to tackle the racial inequality gap and to reduce school excursions (Gregory et al. 2016). This approach has contributed to much research demonstrating the potential of restorative practice for improving schools. The study argued that the ‘approaches that strengthen interpersonal supports and connections, establish structures for fair processes, and encourage student’s voice are especially responsive to the developmental needs of children. It is also found useful for parenting and teaching staff.’ The finding of the study showed that high restorative practice implementing teachers had more positive relationships with their diverse students. Students saw this approach as more respectful. As a result, schools issued fewer exclusions compared with low restorative practice. In addition, the findings show some successful restorative approaches to tackle discipline in schools and to narrow the racial gap in Minnesota, California, Colorado, and Florida. It is also used internationally, including in England, Australia, Scotland, Canada, and Hong Kong ( González 2011; McCluskey et al. 2008). The restorative practice was associated with lower suspension with Latino and African American students in the United States (Gregory et al. 2016). Another approach used by successful schools in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States is developing good practices for behaviour

134  What are the lessons for those concerned

management to control student conduct in schools. Research by Armstrong (2018) highlighted the need for accommodating the behavioural needs of the student.This is also recognised in countries such as Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the USA as representing a significant challenge for education. However, it has been argued that using evidence-based initiatives designed to tackle behaviour issues in the United States and the United Kingdom through the use of effective behaviour support has made a positive change to reduce school exclusions. One of the key recommendations from these behaviour management initiatives in tackling behaviour problems is to use targeted support for teachers experiencing occupational burnout. He also argued for the need for the introduction of incentives policy to encourage schools to include students who might otherwise face suspension or exclusion on behavioural grounds (Armstrong 2018). Garner (2011:14) also argued that schools that are successful in reducing school exclusions of pupils with challenging behaviours are characterised by effective leadership that has ensured a number of measures to prevent exclusions including: the use and promotion of well-integrated in-class support to teachers; clear, well-understood behaviour expectations; consistent but fair use of rewards and light-touch sanctions; strongly established, well-staffed learning support units and mentors; strongly embedded multi-agency support; and a strong commitment to inclusion. Demie and McLean argued, based on their good practice research in schools, that: These good practices were almost universal and included a powerful ethos and strong core values, clear routines, consistently administered, a culture of high expectations and a focus on building excellent, supportive relationships where children are respected, their talents are nurtured, and they are able to thrive. There were also strong links with the community and a clear commitment to equal opportunities. (2019:68) The research evidence from England shows that it is possible for schools to successfully reduce exclusions and provides evidence and practical tips to ensure we can meet the challenge of tackling school exclusions in England. There are also lessons from other studies in the United States and elsewhere. The main findings from the United States suggest that that school-based intervention; enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers; restorative practice, and good behavioural management can be effective in reducing school exclusions (Armstrong 2018; Garner 2011; González 2011; McCluskey et al. 2008). There is evidence that successful schools in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States are developing good practices for behaviour management, including targeted support for teachers experiencing occupational burnout and

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  135

Promotion of well-integrated in-class support to teachers; clear, well-understood behaviour expectations; consistent but fair use of rewards and lighttouch sanctions; strongly established, well-staffed learning support units and mentors; strongly embedded multi-agency support; and a strong commitment to inclusion that helped in tackling school exclusions. (Garner 2011:8) What is also clear from the review is that restorative approaches to school discipline are increasingly used to reduce student suspension and to close the racial discipline gap in the United States and elsewhere. The finding from the United States and elsewhere also shows that high restorative practice implementing teachers had more positive relationships with their diverse students. These include Latino and African American students compared with lower restorative practice users.

Conclusions The substantial body of research into school exclusions has offered valuable background and insights into the cause and consequences of school exclusion both in England and at the international level (Artiles 1998; Demie 2019a, 2019b; Df E 2019a; EHRC 2015; EPI 2019; Hemphill et al. 2010; House of Common Library 2018; IPPR 2017; McClusky et al. 2016; Nichols 2004; Noltemeyer and McLoughlin 2010; Ofsted 2018a; Parsons 2008; Power and Taylor 2018; Skiba et al. 2003; Skiba et al. 2011:14; Timpson 2019; Wilson et al. 2020). We would argue that racial and SEN disproportionality is not only a problem facing schools (Artiles 2003; Coutinho and Oswald 2000; Donlevy et al. 2016; Strand and Lindsay 2009; Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007; Villegas and Irvine 2010) but also a challenge that policymakers face. There has been considerable concern among educational policymakers about the growing numbers of school exclusions in England (Demie and McLean 2017; Df E 2018; IPPR 2017; Parsons 2009), and it is now a ‘hot topic’ in the UK (Demie 2019a, 2019c; Df E 2019a, 2019b; IPPR 2017) in the national debate. Other research and reports have also highlighted the reasons for unofficial exclusions in English schools are also related to off-rolling (House of Common Library 2018; Ofsted 2018a, 2018b). This is reinforced by Year 10 data that show the largest increase in permanent exclusions. The data also show that increasing numbers of children are excluded as a result of offing to ‘game’ the school performance league table, or to relieve financial pressure on schools. Previous research also shows that Black and special educational needs pupils are disproportionately excluded in schools (EHRC 2015; Gillborn and Youdell 2000; IPPR 2017; Parsons 1999, 2009). Other research by Tenenbaum and Ruck (2007) also found teacher expectations for Black students lower compared to White and Asian students in England. There is now a growing body of research that confirms teachers’ expectations of student matter, and they can underestimate the academic achievement of the student of colour (see Donlevy et al. 2016; Tenenbaum and Ruck 2007;Villegas and Irvine 2010).

136  What are the lessons for those concerned

Despite long-standing concerns that Black Caribbean pupils and those with special educational needs (SEN) continue to be at greater risk of exclusion from school, there has been little research into reasons for the rise in school exclusions and for their over-representation in exclusions. This book aims to explore the factors associated with school exclusions and the parents’ and teachers’ experiences of the cause and consequence of school exclusion. Four overarching questions guided this research: • • • • •

What is the scale of exclusion problems and the factors associated with the rise in school exclusions? What are teachers’ and school staff ’s experiences with school exclusions in England? What are the ethnic and SEN disproportionality in school exclusions? What is the international experience in school exclusions? What is the implication for policy, practice, and research?

Mixed methods research, combining qualitative and quantitative research, was used to conduct this study to help understand exclusions issues in schools. There were three strands: data analysis of school exclusion trends, a literature review, and case studies and focus groups comprising school staff, governors, parents, pupils, SENCOs, and educational psychologists. Key questions asked of the respondents included their views on the causes and reasons for the over-representation of certain groups, as well as what could be done to tackle exclusion issues. •

•

Several reasons emerged from the data, focus group, and case study evidence. The main findings from the empirical evidence show the rise in school exclusions in England schools over the period. The data highlighted that the total number of permanent exclusions rose by 57% between 2010/11 and 2017/18 in England. The data also show that the number of fixed-period exclusions has also increased by 27%. The overall analysis of the data confirms that academies for all age groups have higher exclusion rates than local-authority-maintained schools and sponsored academies have exclusion rates twice as high as converter academies in the secondary sector. Further evidence from the analysis of the data by the characteristics of the excluded pupils also suggests that: • Pupils with SEN support were nearly six times as likely to be permanently excluded as those with no SEN, and about twice as likely to be excluded as those with ECHPs. • Pupils who were known to be eligible for free school meals were disproportionately excluded. The data show that they are four times more likely to receive a permanent exclusion and three times fixed period exclusion when compared to children not eligible for free school meals. • The rate of exclusions was highest for Travellers, Black Caribbean, and Gypsy/Roma ethnic groups.

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  137

The most common reason for permanent exclusions in England was persistent disruptive behaviour, physical assault against an adult and a pupil, followed by racist abuse, sexual misconduct, drug- and alcohol-related, damage, theft, and others. The findings of the research suggested some concerning reasons for the rise in school exclusions. Six key factors were identified as main reasons for the rise in school exclusions in English schools, including: • • • • • • •

The government education market policy. The league table factor. Austerity and funding cuts. Fragmentation of the education system. Informal off-rolling. Poverty factor. Rising numbers of children with complex needs, including families facing multiple challenges.

The study also identified disproportionalities in school exclusions which raise serious questions about educational equality. The conclusion of this research confirms there is a disproportionate rate of exclusion of Black Caribbean, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, Gypsy/Roma pupils, and Travellers of Irish Heritage pupils in schools. Our findings indicate ethnic and SEN disparities were caused by multiple factors, including: • • • • • • • • •

Teachers’ low expectations. Institutional racism. Stereotyping. Unconscious bias. Poverty. Lack of diversity. Lack of role model. Illegal and informal exclusions. Families facing multiple challenges.

This evidence is supported by empirical evidence as well as views of headteachers, teachers, school staff, governors, parents, educational psychologists, and special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs). The evidence from the case study interviews also reveals the extent to which racial inequalities still mark the lives of Black and ethnic students in British schools and the disproportionality in school exclusions. They also show how parents themselves frequently faced crude and overt racism during their childhoods. Parents with whom we spoke identified a number of challenges they had to address during the school career of their children, including low expectations on the part of teachers, racism and institutional racism,

138  What are the lessons for those concerned

and stereotypes of Black students and parents. They also argued the form of racism they faced was a feature in their children’s lives and manifestations of racism in schools were now more likely to be subtle. A number of parents interviewed took their concerns to the headteacher and challenged the school when they perceived there to be issues of inequality and racism. However, the evidence also shows that some teachers and headteachers were reluctant to name race and institutional racism explicitly even if issues were raised. They were defensive because it may cause trouble in schools. The people interviewed argued that schools do not have enough money and additional resources are required to explore alternative ways to work with a child on the path to exclusion and to provide intensive support to prevent exclusions. A point that was repeatedly raised was that the underlying causes of the behaviours that led to exclusions weren’t properly explored, again often due to lack of resources and understanding. Furthermore, there was a lack of teacher training around behaviour management which contributes to the over-representation of ethnic minority pupils in school exclusions, as well as other disadvantaged groups. It was strongly felt that unconscious bias contributed to certain groups being disproportionately excluded, and this needs to be explicitly addressed in teacher training and as part of CPD in schools. These findings in England are supported by other international studies which show ethnic and SEN disproportionality in school exclusion is a national and international problem (see Demie 2019a; Hemphill et al. 2010; McClusky et al. 2016; Nichols 2004; Noltemeyer and McLoughlin 2010; Skiba et al. 2011;Timpson 2019). The international data also suggest that exclusion is disproportionately affecting children from economically disadvantaged families (Hemphill et al. 2010; Nichols 2004) as well as those from ethnic minorities (Noltemeyer and McLoughlin 2010; Skiba et al. 2011). The recent analysis points out that racial disproportionality in exclusion still remains significant after controlling for behaviour, number and type of school offenses, age, gender, teacher’s ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (e.g., Carlile 2012; Noltemeyer and McLoughlin 2010; Skiba et al. 2002). These findings have been consistently replicated by more studies that confirm racial disparities in suspension and expulsions were somewhat more robust than socio-economic differences (Nicholas et al. 1999; Skiba et al. 2002, 2011). Building on these findings, the review of the literature also seeks to understand success factors in reducing exclusion. However, despite long-standing concerns that students of colour, particularly Black Caribbean, Mixed White, and the Black Caribbean, Black African American, Hispanic, Native American, Māori and Gypsy, Irish travellers, and SEN and disadvantaged pupils, in both the UK and elsewhere continue to be at greater risk of exclusion from school, there has been little research into what works in tackling school exclusions in schools. Evidence from the UK case study shows that successful schools bucked the national trend by rarely, if ever, excluding pupils (Df E 2019a, 2019b; Moore et al. 2019; Partridge et al. 2020; Timpson 2019). These schools are successful in supporting pupils at

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  139

risk of exclusion. Schools that successfully minimised exclusions had the following key features: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Providing a strong leadership team committed to equality and diversity. Shared vision, ethos, and values. Effective inclusion strategy and practice. Innovative curriculum. Effective teaching and learning. Diverse workforce. Excellent care and guidance of pupils. Targeted intervention and support. Close links with parents and community. Effective behavioural management policy and practice that are based on inclusion in mind. Effective use of inclusive and nurturing education. Restorative approaches to school discipline, strongly embedded multi-agency support. Well-staffed alternative provisions and learning support units and mentors.

The international research literature reviewed suggested that the good practice discussed above has been used in England, the USA, Canada, Australia, Honk Kong and internationally to tackle school exclusions and suspensions (see for details Df E 2019a, 2019b; Garner 2011; González 2011; Graham et al. 2019; Gregory et al. 2016; McCluskey et al. 2008; Parsons 2009; Partridge et al. 2020; RSA’s 2021;Valdebenito et al. 2019). The good practice from the research literature reviewed could be considered by schools, practitioners, and policymakers to reduce and to plan to manage the alternative pathways of learners at risk of school exclusions. There is evidence from the literature reviewed also that successful schools are using good practice related to school exclusions, ranging from the commitment to individual teachers through effective use of school discipline policy that is not rigid and whole-school approach to vulnerable children and their behaviours.These successful schools in school exclusions put a premium on the education of the child and not on the financial cost of its education which is used as a reason to exclude venerable BAME and SEN children. All are driven by a commitment to do their best for every child in the schools. In these successful schools, children come first by ensuring the behaviour policy is based on inclusion and does not discriminate against pupils on the grounds of race and SEND.

Implications for policy, practice and research This book has documented the cause, consequences, and experience of school exclusions from the perspective of teachers, parents, and school staff. As far as possible, the research has been guided by headteachers, teachers, parents, governors,

140  What are the lessons for those concerned

and SENCOs by focusing specifically on their experience and concerns. In this final section, we set out to consider some implications of our findings for research, policy, and practice.

Implications for central government and local authorities in England This book discussed the grave concern about the drastic rise in school exclusions and its devastating long-term negative consequences on pupils’ educations. It has also explored in detail the main reasons for the over-representation in exclusions, including low teacher expectation, institutional racism, pupil behaviour, rigid school policies, and socio-cultural factors outside the school’s control (McClusky et al. 2016). The literature review also highlighted racism as one key factor for the disproportionate exclusion rate of Black Caribbean pupils (Demie 2019a, 2019c; IPPR 2017). Racism was also influenced views on acceptable behaviour and expectations of ethnic minority pupils. Overall, the review of the literature confirms that Black students are more than twice as likely as White students to be suspended or expelled in England. There is no doubt that the government, despite having caused the conditions in which exclusion is flourished, is worried about the high rates of exclusion and asked Timpson to review the problem but never implemented his recommendations (Df E 2019a, 2019b; Timpson 2019). The concern from these research findings in this book is that there is absolute silence from the government on why Black and SEN children are disproportionately excluded. We would argue that the debate around school exclusions in England is not about whether the headteacher has the right and responsibility to tackle school exclusions but rather how that is to be accomplished in schools. There is evidence the implementation of zero-tolerance policies leads to a substantial increase rate of school exclusions. The challenge from this research for national policymakers is to recognise that the growing number of exclusions and over-representation of Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusions are a major problem. There is now strong evidence that the reasons for the over-representation of Black Caribbean, Mixed White, and Black Caribbean, Gypsy/Roma on school exclusions are real and there is a need to address them in English school systems. It is important also for the government to recognise that its current education policy has reduced state education in England to a quasi-market, with performance tables and the fragmentation of the education system, while the focus on school structure such as academies and free schools has resulted in a rise in pupil exclusions. Another policy concern is the over-representation of ethnic minorities, particularly those with Black Caribbean background, on school exclusions as a result of low expectations, institutional racism, and lack of diversity in schools. Clearly, this is unacceptable from social justice perspectives, and we hope that the findings of our research might help to continue putting the issue of race and racism back on the map of education policy. There are a number of ways in which the central government can support initiatives taken at school levels to ensure that racial discrimination is outlawed and that all children

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  141

have the opportunity to achieve in school.To tackle the rise and over-representation of some groups on school exclusions in England, we would suggest, then, that policymakers in the Department for Education (Df E) should: •

• • •

•

•

•

Review school league tables to stop schools from using exclusions to boost their results. Make schools more closely responsible and accountable for the educational outcomes of pupils they exclude. Ensuring equal opportunities issues and unconscious bias are addressed within initial teacher training. Ensure teachers, SENCOs, and school leaders have access to training that focus on behavioural issues and strategies. Df E should work to build the capacity of governors and trustees to support and challenge schools to ensure that legal procedures and school policy are followed appropriately. This needs to be supported by effective training initiatives and guidance for governors to ensure they meet their statutory responsibilities. Df E should review the training and support available to SENCOs as SEND leaders to develop an understanding of the procedure and issues related to school exclusions and suspensions. There is a lack of clear guidance for reasons for exclusions. Df E should review the range of reasons that schools provide for exclusions, particularly the use of the ‘other’ category when submitting the census data so that the reasons that lie behind exclusions are more accurately captured. The Df E should also revise and provide particularly clear guidance for parents explaining ADHD and ASD. The Df E should promote examples of good practice in supporting pupils at risk of exclusion. They should also work with schools to develop a toolkit that schools can use to prevent exclusions.

In addition to the implementation of the above recommendations, it is also critical that education policy must make a fundamental shift from exclusion to inclusion. There is now evidence that the current government education policy that encourages many schools to exclude and off-roll ethnic minority children has been a failure with rising school exclusions (Demie 2019a, 2019c). Schools need to be supported to explore alternative models of intervention to tackle school exclusions. There is also another important recommendation for government and local authorities that need to be considered as a means of tackling school exclusions. We would argue that schools cannot tackle exclusions on their own and there is a need to address issues of school exclusions also beyond the school gate. Many of the children and young people most at risk of exclusion have complex, overlapping vulnerabilities that necessitate effective multi-agency working with other services and voluntary organisations beyond the school gate. Our research also shows exclusions have multiple causes and tackling school exclusions also requires strategies that bring together multiple agencies that more usually work in isolation. The research reviewed also points to the role of local collaborating systems, that bring together mainstream, special, and alternative provision schools; SEND specialists; social care; and local health

142  What are the lessons for those concerned

services, to be an effective model for supporting at-risk pupils (Demie 2019a; Df E 2019c; Timpson 2019). The lesson learned from RSA (2021) research into the effect of multi-agency work across LA and schools also suggests that it is possible to reduce and manage school exclusions beyond school gates through the effective use of a multi-agency approach. A major priority for the government must be therefore to provide incentives for multi-agency work to tackle school exclusions.

Implications for schools and school leaders The issue of school exclusions is not just for government and local authorities. Our research shows school have also a poor record in this area, when dealing with exclusions, particularly with different cultural or racial or SEN backgrounds. The implications for schools are many and varied.There are no simple or single solutions to tackle school exclusions. Evidence from a review of pieces of literature on tackling school exclusions and suspensions suggests there are a number of approaches that make a difference. There is evidence that successful schools have recorded no or little exclusion rate.To tackle school exclusions and suspensions, it suggested that schools should: •

• •

• •

• •

• • •

Develop a strong leadership team that is committed to diversity and equality. As a matter of good practice, we suggest the audit of the current workforce and pursue diversification at all levels, including teachers and senior management. Use a well-developed effective Teachers Continuing Professional Development (CPD). Use an effective approach to train staff to recognise symptoms of childhood trauma, for example, as a result of challenging home environments, knife crime, gangs, within their students’ neighbourhood. Develop an effective inclusion strategy and practice. Develop excellent care and guidance of pupils that provides exceptional care, pastoral support, and guidance for pupils. This guidance should meet the individual and often complex needs of children when they enter school including ADHD and child mental health needs. Provide early interventions, restorative practice and justice, and support for learning. Audit the curriculum to ensure that it reflects the diversity of the school’s community and the needs of the people. Develop an innovative curriculum to meet the needs of excluded pupils and BAME and SEN pupils. Use a diverse workforce in terms of the range of roles, skills, and ethnicity. Use effective targeted intervention and support to tackle school exclusions. Develop a good behavioural management policy and practice. It is vital that the school behaviour policy is constantly reviewed to ensure that the behaviour policy does not discriminate against pupils on the grounds of race, gender, SEND, or sexual orientation. It is vital also that the behaviour policy is clear, that it is well understood by staff, parents, and pupils.

School community links have also an important role to play in tackling the problem with school exclusions. Evidence from the good practice research shows that local

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  143

organisations representing the Black community can offer important insight into the social and family pressures facing Black children at school, which often lead directly to their misbehaviour at school and such organisations can be called to defuse situations which otherwise lead to exclusions. If parental rights have been assigned a central role, with the government education market, in holding the schools to account and ensuring that exclusions procedures are used correctly, it is possible to reduce school exclusions in the current fragmented school system. It is also strongly recommended that schools establish links with relevant Black community organisations and actively seek their assistance in dealing particularly with behavioural issues.

Implications for tackling ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions We would argue that racial disproportionality in school exclusions is not only a problem facing schools in the United Kingdom (Demie 2019a) but a major concern in the United States (Skiba et al. 2011; Wilson et al. 2020) and Australia (Hemphill et al. 2010). However, despite long-standing concerns that Black pupils continue to be at greater risk of exclusion from school, there is little research in the UK on factors responsible for disproportionality. Students of colour, particularly Black Caribbean, Mixed White, and the Black Caribbean, Black African American, Hispanic, Native American, Māori and Gypsy, Irish travellers, have been shown disproportionality in school exclusions. These research studies are supported by other international studies that suggest exclusion is disproportionately affecting ethnic minority children (Handy 1999; Hemphill et al. 2010; Nichols 2004; Talbert-Johnson 1998) as well as those from ethnic minorities (Artiles 2003; Coutinho and Oswald 2000; Noltemeyer and McLoughlin 2010; Skiba et al. 2003, 2005). Clearly, this is unacceptable, and we hope the findings of our research might help to contribute to putting issues of race and racism back on the map for educational policymakers at the national and international levels. We would suggest, then, that policymakers: •

• • •

Take radical steps to address racism and low expectations in the teaching profession. We recommend compulsory race equality training across the public sector. Take steps to address racism in schools. Take a radical step to address ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions by improving awareness. Use a school curriculum that recognises the contribution of the different cultural, ethnic, linguistic groups, and religious groups to ensure community cohesion and educational improvement.

Implications for tackling SEN disproportionality The evidence in this book has several important messages for policymakers, SENCOs, and schools. It argues for the case for policymakers and schools to recognise that the growing number of SEN pupil exclusions and over-representation and special educational needs (SEN) pupils in school exclusions is a major problem.

144  What are the lessons for those concerned

There is now strong evidence the reasons for the over-representation of SEN on school exclusions are related to behaviour difficulties, lack of appropriate training and guidance for teaching of SEN pupils and behaviour management and budget cut, and lack of funding. The recommendation from this study is that there is a need to develop targeted initiatives to tackle over-representation and to reduce SEN exclusions in England’s schools. To tackle the rise of school exclusions and over-representations: •

The government should make schools responsible and accountable for their educational outcomes for pupils they excluded to stop the rise in school exclusions and reduce the over-representation of and SEN pupils. • The government should review the training and support available to SENCOs to equip them to be effective in their operational and strategic role as SEND leaders. • The government should provide additional funding to tackle the lack of funds which has resulted in schools reducing support for vulnerable pupils. • Local Authorities (LAs), multi-academy trusts (MATs), and schools should monitor SEN disproportionality in the identification of SEN. In addition to the implementation of the above recommendations, it is also critical that education policy must make a fundamental shift from exclusion to inclusion. There is now evidence that the current government education policy that encourages many schools to exclude and off-rolling SEN children has been a failure with rising school exclusions (Demie 2019a, 2019c). Schools need to be supported to explore alternative models of intervention to tackle school exclusions. Teachers tell us that they want to do things differently, but they feel like the system is against them. It seems essential that a coordinated response is launched to tackle the overrepresentation of SEN pupils in school exclusions. In isolation, however, reducing the number of exclusions will not address the underlying reasons for the over-representation of SEN pupils among those excluded. Most discussions on exclusions take place away from school-excluded pupils. Research so far omitted how exclusions fit in the life of schools and what can be done to tackle the over-representation of SEN pupils. Indeed, teacher perspectives are absent from research. Further research on this issue at the school level is a priority.

Implications for school exclusions data collection at the national and international levels Collection and analysis of school exclusion data are critical in improving our knowledge on the cause, consequences of school exclusions, and developing strategies for tackling school exclusions in schools. Despite this importance, however, few attempts have been made to generate and collect school exclusions with focuses on the over-representation of SEN, ethnic minority pupils. Our research extends this study by looking at the school experience in school exclusions, reasons schools

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  145

report for excluding and suspending pupils, permanent exclusions and suspensions by pupil characteristics, and factors responsible for the increase in school exclusions in schools. The findings of this study suggest that in general ethnic minorities and SEN pupils are over-represented in school exclusions. These findings have implications for the collection of data on ethnic and linguistic backgrounds and social backgrounds. As highlighted above, in Britain school census data are considered the most important source of information about school exclusions and are used by ministers, Parliament, central and local government, pressure groups, and the public to monitor government policies and their effectiveness (Timpson 2019). However, the extent to which school exclusion data is collected by ethnic and SEN and other social background varies from country to country. Despite the recognition of the importance of collecting detailed SEN, language, and ethnic background data in the UK, the USA, Australia, and Canada, in many countries, it is illegal in countries such as Russia, Turkey, and France to include race, ethnic, and language and SEN data in official statistics, or for the census to include questions about race or origin, ethnic and linguistic background. In conclusion, we argue that schools and policymakers need to recognise the importance of school exclusion data with additional information such as race, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity to tackle inequality in access to education. School exclusion data by race, ethnic background and other socioeconomic characteristics provide evidence that can be used to design interventions that can tackle the root cause of exclusion and suspension of different groups in schools. The lesson from England suggests that the collection of data on children with special educational needs is not straightforward, but data are vital at the national and international levels to ensure that policies are in place to address the constraints SEN children face. To support special educational needs pupils in school exclusions it is important we collect data by types of SEN, including ADHD, anxiety, anorexia, aphasia, Asperger’s syndrome, auditory processing disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, and behavioural difficulties – EBD, SEBD, SEMH.

Implications for future research agenda We would argue that learning from the research findings can make a difference to schools and policymakers at the national and international levels where school exclusions and suspension are practiced in schools.This research is mainly about the experience of teachers, parents, and other school staff in school exclusions in the context of England. Despite this, our study has limitations that have implications for further research to address the serious gaps in knowledge about the extent, causes, and consequences of school exclusions. First, this study is a small-scale one based on a small number of respondents. The research method used was also a case study to explore in detail the reasons for rising school exclusions, cause and consequences, and the over-representations of some ethnic and SEN pupils on school exclusions. The evidence reported suggesting, as did Demie and Hague et al., that more research is needed to address the serious gaps in knowledge about the extent, causes, and consequences of school exclusions.

146  What are the lessons for those concerned

Second, there are also a number of other areas that we have not looked in detail as part of this study to answer research questions such as: ‘What are the reasons for exclusions from schools?’ ‘What works in tackling school exclusions?’ To date, there is a scant empirical and ethnographic research on the impact of school exclusions on schools, parents and teachers, and school staff both in England and elsewhere. Extending and developing more research into the rise of exclusions and over-representation of BAME pupils in England has the potential to enhance our understanding of the factors responsible for exclusions. The recommendation from this study is that there is a need for additional longitudinal studies using an ethnographic approach in different schools, LAs, and regions in England and elsewhere to get a wider picture. Third, additional research is also needed to explore ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions. Our research has shown that these differences have existed for decades and have had a disproportionately negative effect on the educational attainment, social/emotional wellbeing, rate of exclusions, and life chances of students of colour. Past research has highlighted how the ethnic breakdown of a school’s population is a very powerful prediction of the level of exclusion (Rocque and Paternoster 2011; Skiba et al. 2014). However few studies have examined how a school’s ethnic balance affects differing discipline approaches between students of colour and their White counterparts. Previous studies (Welch and Payne 2010) have suggested that Black and ethnic minority students attending schools with higher proportions of White students may be particularly vulnerable to more punitive discipline. There is a need for more research to understand how these factors also contribute to ethnic disproportionality in school exclusions. Finally, this study also raises potential avenues for further research for tackling SEN disproportionality. It seems essential that a coordinated response is launched to reduce the number of pupil exclusions from school. In isolation, however, reducing the number of exclusions will not address the underlying reasons for the overrepresentation of SEN pupils among those excluded. Most discussions on exclusions take place away from school-excluded pupils. Research so far has focussed mainly on the types of SEN and omitted how exclusions fit in the life of schools. Indeed, teacher perspectives are absent from research. Further research on this issue at the school level is a priority.

References Armstrong, D. (2018) ‘Addressing the wicked problem of behaviour in schools’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 22:9, 997–1013. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2017.141373 Artiles, A. (2003) ‘Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas on views of culture and space’, Harvard Educational Review 73: 164–202. doi: 10.17763/ haer.73.2.j78t573x377j7106 Artiles, A. J. (1998) ‘The dilemma of difference: Enriching the disproportionality discourse with theory and context’, Journal of Special Education 32: 32–36. Carlile, A. (2012) ‘An ethnography of permanent exclusion from school: Revealing and untangling the threads of institutionalised racism’, Race Ethnicity and Education 15(2): 175–194.

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  147

Coutinho, M. J., and Oswald, D. P. (2000) ‘Disproportionate representation in special education: A synthesis and recommendations’, Journal of Child and Family Studies 9(2): 135–156. Demie, F. (2019a) ‘The Experience of Black Caribbean Pupils in School Exclusion in England’, Educational Review. doi.10.1080/00131911.2019.1590316 Demie, F. (2019b) Educational inequality: Closing the gap. London: UCL IOE Press. Demie, F. (2019c) Exclusions of pupils from schools in England: Extent, causes and consequences: Research Project Brief. London: Lambeth School Research and Statistics Unit. https:// www.lambeth.gov.uk/rsu/sites/; www.lambeth.gov.uk.rsu/files/school_exclusions_in_ england_research_brief.pdf Demie, F., and McLean, C. (2017) Black Caribbean underachievement in schools in England. London: School Research and Statistics Unit, Lambeth LA. Df E (2018) Permanent and fixed period exclusions in England: 2016 to 2017. London: Department for Education, 19 July. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment data/file/726741/text_exc1617.pdf Df E (2019a) Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England 2017–2018. London: Department for Education, 25 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixedperiod-exclusions-in-england-2017-to-2018; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/827876/Permanent_and_ fixed_period_exclusion_2017_to_2018_-_underlying_data.zip Df E (2019b) School exclusion: A literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children. London: Department for Education. Df E (2019c) Special educational needs in England: January 2019 technical document. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/814248/SEN_2019_Technical_document.pdf Donlevy, V., Meierkord, A., and Rajania, A. (2016) Study on the diversity within the teaching profession with particular focus on migrant and/or minority background. Luxembourg: European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture Education and Training. doi: 10.2766/015763 EEF (2019) The EEF guidance report improving behaviour in schools. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/tools/guidancereports/improving-behaviour-in-schools/ EHRC (2015) Is Britain fairer? The state of equality and human rights. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-britainfairer-the-state-of-equality-and-human-rights-2015 EPI (2019) Unexplained pupil exits from schools: A growing problem? London: Education Policy Unit, April. https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EPI_Unexplained-pupilexits_2019.pdf Garner, P. (2011) Promoting the conditions for positive behaviour, to help every child succeed Review of the landscape. National College for School Leadership (NCSL). https://dera.ioe. ac.uk/12538/1/download%3Fid%3D158591%26filename%3Dpromoting-the-conditions-for-positive-behaviour-to-help-every-child-succeed.pdf Gastic, B. (2017) ‘Disproportionality in school Discipline in Massachusetts’, Education and Urban Society 49(2): 163–179. Gillborn, D., and Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. González, T. (2011) ‘Restoring justice: Community organizing to transform school discipline policies’, U.C. Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy 15(1): 9–10. Graham, B., White, C., Edwards, A., Potter, S., and Street, C. (2019) School exclusion: A literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children. Department for Education, May. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800028/Timpson_review_of_school_exclusion_literature_review.pdf

148  What are the lessons for those concerned

Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., and Gerewitz, J. (2016) ‘The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline’, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 26(4): 325–353. Handy, A. J. (1999) Ethnocentrism and black students with disabilities: Bridging the cultural gap, volume I. New York:Vantage Press. Hemphill, S. A.,Toumbourou, J.W., and Smith, Rachel. (2010) ‘Are rates of school suspension higher in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods? An Australian study’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia 21(1):12–18. House of Common Library (2018) Off-rolling in English schools. London: House of Common Library Brief, Number 08444, 10 December. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8444 IPPR (2017) Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ making-the-difference-report-october-2017.pdf McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Stead, J., Riddell, S., and Weedon, E. (2008). ‘Can restorative practices in schools make a difference?’, Educational Review 60(4): 405–417. McClusky, G., Riddell, Sheila, Weedon, E., and Fordyce, M (2016) ‘Exclusion from school and recognition of difference’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37(4): 529–539. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2015.1073 Moore, D., Benham-Clarke, S., Kenchington, R., Boyle, C., Ford, T., Hayes, R., and Rogers, M. (2019) Improving behaviour in schools: Evidence review. London: Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Improving_ Behaviour_in_Schools_Evidence_Review.pdf Nichols, D., Ludwin, G., and Iadicola P. (1999) ‘A darker shade of Gray: A year-end analysis of discipline and suspension data’, Equity & Excellence in Education 32: 43–55. Nichols, J. D. (2004) ‘An exploration of discipline and suspension data’, The Journal of Negro Education 73(4): 408–423. Noltemeyer, L., and McLoughlin, S. (2010) ‘Changes in exclusionary discipline rates and disciplinary disproportionality over time’, International Journal of Special Education 25(1): 59–70. Ofsted (2018a) Off-rolling: Using data to see a fuller picture, Blog Posted by: Jason Bradbury, June. https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/06/26/off-rolling-usingdata-to-see-a-fuller-picture/ Ofsted (2018b) School inspection update: Special edition. https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742258/School_inspection_update_-_special_edition_September_2018.pdf Parsons, C. (1999) Education, exclusion and citizenship. London: Routledge. Parsons, C. (2008) ‘Race relations legislation, ethnicity and disproportionality in school exclusions in England’, Cambridge Journal of Education 39(3): 401–419. Parsons, C. (2009) ‘Explaining sustained inequalities in ethnic minority school exclusions in England—passive racism in a neoliberal grip’, Oxford Review of Education 35(2): 249–265. Partridge, L., Strong, F., Lobley, E. and Mason, D. (2020) Preventing school exclusions. Royal Society of Arts (RSA). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340137182_Pinball_ Kids_-_Preventing_school_exclusions/link/5e7b3a21a6fdcc57b7bbf4cc/download Power, S., and Taylor, C. (2018) ‘Not in the classroom, but still on the register: Hidden forms of school exclusion’ International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://www.tandfonline. com/doi/full/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492644 Raffaele, L. M., and Knoff, H. M. (2003) ‘Who gets suspended from school and why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school district’, Education and Treatment of Children 26: 30–51.

Tackling exclusions, conclusions, and implications  149

Rocque, M., and Paternoster, R. (2011) ‘Understanding the antecedents of the “school-to jail” link:The relationship between race and school discipline’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 101(2): 633–666. RSA (2021) Inclusive & nurturing schools toolkit. December. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/_foundation/new-site-blocks-and-images/reports/2021/12/inclusive_nurturing_ schools_toolkit_final.pdf Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., and Rausch, M. K. (2014) New and developing research on disparities in discipline. Bloomington, IN: The Equity Project at Indiana University. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C., Rausch, M. K., May, S., and Tobin, T. (2011) ‘Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline’, School Psychology Review 40(1): 85–107. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., and Peterson, R. (2002) ‘The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment’, Urban Review 34(4): 317–342. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Feggins-Azziz, L. R., and Chung, C. (2005) ‘Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education?’, Journal of Special Education 39(3): 130–144. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., Henderson, M., and Wu, T. (2003) The context of minority disproportionality: Local perspectives on special education referral. A status reports. Indiana: Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Centre. Strand, S., and Lindsay, G. (2009) ‘Evidence of ethnic disproportionality in special education in an English population’, Journal of Special Education 43(3): 174190. Talbert-Johnson, C. (1998) ‘Why so many African American children in special education?’ School Business Affairs 64(4): 30–35. Tenenbaum, H. R., and Ruck, M. D. (2007) ‘Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than European American students? A meta-analysis’ Journal of Educational Psychology 99: 253–273. Timpson, D. (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, P., Ttofi, M., and Sutherland, A. (2018) ‘School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review’, Campbell Systematic Reviews 14(1): 1–216. Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, P., Ttofi, M., and Sutherland, A. (2019) ‘What can we do to reduce disciplinary school exclusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Experimental Criminology 15(3): 253–287. doi.10.1007/s11292-018-09351-0 Villegas, A. M., and Irvine, J. J. (2010) ‘Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments’, Urban Review 42(3): 175–192. Welch, K., and Payne, A. A. (2010) ‘Racial threat and punitive school discipline’, Social Problems 57(1): 25–48. Wilson, M., Yull, G., and Massey, S. (2020) ‘Race and the politics of educational exclusion: Explaining the persistence of disproportionate disciplinary practices in an urban school district’, Race Ethnicity and Education 23(1): 134–157.

INDEX

Abbott 115, 119 Abouchar, A. 60 Academy schools 96 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) xii, 15, 23, 47–48, 60–69, 71, 80, 94, 96, 98, 101–104, 112, 115–118, 129, 141–143, 145, 149 African American 4, 5, 7, 15, 112, 115–118, 120, 123–124, 133, 135, 138, 142, 149 Andrews, J. 28, 29 Armstrong 111, 119, 134, 146 Arredondo, M. I. 149 Artiles, A. J. 111, 117, 119, 135, 137 Asbury, J.E. 111, 117, 119, 135, 137, 143, 140 Atkinson, B. M. 9, 13 Atkinson, M. 56, 57 Austerity 10, 16, 25, 26, 28, 49, 104–106, 137 Australia 5, 13–14, 101, 110, 116–118, 120–121, 124–125, 134, 137, 139, 145, 148 Autism 27, 62–63, 100, 103 Baars, S. 122 Bachman, J. 124 Ball, S. 20, 29, 124 Barth, R. 56–57 Bassey, M. 9, 13 Beauchamp, T. 5, 13 Bedward, J. 70, 129 Behaviour Difficulties 11, 96, 108, 144 Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD) 94

behaviour policy xv, 43, 50, 55–56, 63, 101 Behaviour problems 34, 56, 81, 130, 134; challenging; discipline 11, 82, 99, 104, 133; reasons for exclusions 3, 16, 27, 28, 55, 62, 99, 127, 141, 146; school discipline 12, 15, 121, 123–124, 133, 135, 139, 147, 148–149 Behaviour Support Team 26, 105, 106, 108 Behaviours 20, 25, 102, 105, 108, 131, 134, 138–139; see also Behaviour Difficulties Behaviours policy 43, 50, 55–56, 62, 101, 103, 139, 142 Bell, J. 9, 13 Benham-Clarke, S. 122, 131, 148 Bernard, H.R. 8, 13 Bessudnov, A. 121 Bethel, A. 71 Black and ethnic minorities (BAME) 7, 11, 24, 41, 67, 68, 69, 86, 87, 99, 112, 114, 119, 139 Black Caribbean pupils 3, 4, 13, 28, 29, 40–41, 55, 57, 64, 70, 76–83, 88, 90, 91, 104, 109, 113–115, 120, 136, 140 Black, A. 121 Boddy, J. 29 Bourne, J. 4, 13 Boyle, C. 122, 131, 148 Bridges, L. 13, 132 Brown, C. 29 Brown, K. 122 Brown-Viner, K. 13, 67, 116, 113 Budget Cut 12, 25–26, 52, 67, 96, 105, 108, 144

Index  151

Canada 13, 67, 116, 133, 134, 139, 145 Carey, M.A. 9, 13 Carlile, A. 111, 119, 138, 146 Case studies 10, 61, 102, 119, 127, 132, 136 Cassen, R. 87, 90, 114, 119 Central government 12, 133, 140 Challenging behaviour 11, 82, 99, 104, 133 Challenging families 51 Child poverty 23, 24, 28; see also poverty Chung, C. 15, 123, 149 Clawson, K. 148 Coard, B. 75, 90 Cole, T. 20, 21, 25–26, 29, 70, 111, 115, 119, 120, 122 Collishaw, S. 60, 70 Communication 36, 55, 56, 60–62, 68–69, 82, 94, 119 Continuing professional development (CPD) 129, 138, 142 Cooper, P. 71, 110, 120 Coram 33, 57, 60, 68, 70 Coutinho, M. J. 111, 120, 135, 143, 147 Cresswell, J. W. 8, 13, 111, 120 Cullen, M. 71, 122 Curriculum 22, 25, 57, 60, 81, 89, 99, 105, 112, 120, 123, 130, 139, 142, 143 Daniels, H. 15, 29, 59, 61, 70, 111, 114, 119, 120, 122, 123 Data collection, exclusion 12, 144 Davies, A. 15, 148 De Boer, H. 83, 84, 91, 111 Demie, F. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 18, 22, 24–29, 34–35, 39, 45, 53, 57, 59, 60–61, 70, 75, 81, 83, 87–88, 90–91, 93, 100–107, 109, 111–112, 114, 117–120, 124, 128, 130, 134–136, 138, 140–145, 147 Department for Children, School, and Families (DCSF) xii, 60, 70 Department for Education (Df E) xii, xiv, 3–7, 13, 16–29, 45, 49, 58, 59, 70, 75, 76–77, 90–96, 106, 141, 143, 147 Department for Education and Skills (Df ES) xii, 13, 70 Desforges, C. 60 Disability 23, 24, 57, 94, 109, 121 Disadvantaged 5, 14, 23, 71, 81, 121, 138, 148 Discipline, Schools 133, 135, 139, 147, 148, 149 Discipline Policy 139 Discrimination 3, 78, 85, 140 Disproportionality xiv, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11–12, 13–15, 23, 30, 34, 71, 73, 75–78, 87–96, 107, 110–112, 116–124, 128, 135–138,

143, 149; see also SEN disproportionality; ethnic disproportionality; reasons for exclusions; overrepresentation; Institutional racism; stereotyping; teachers low expectations; unconscious bias; challenging behaviour Diversity 3, 67, 78, 84, 87, 89, 90–91, 109, 114, 120, 128–129, 137, 139–140, 142, 145, 147; see also race equality; equal opportunities Donlevy, V. 83, 91, 111, 112, 120, 135, 140, 142, 145, 147 Duan, N. 14 Duff 11, 120 Dunne, S. 71 Dyslexia 61, 62, 67, 94, 96 Dyson, A. 5, 13, 120 Economic factors 16, 84, 85, 117 Educational Psychologist xi, 8–12, 45, 81–88, 94, 96, 99, 104, 107–108, 111, 136–137 Education policy 3, 7, 13, 141, 144, 147; see also austerity; behaviour policy; curriculum; inclusion; fragmentation of the education system; league table; marketisation of education; off-rolling; quasi market; poverty Education, Health and Cares (EHCP) plan xii, 27, 44, 47, 48, 93–95, 98, 101 Edwards A. 14, 15, 123, 147 EEF 128, 131, 147 EHRC 3, 4, 6, 26, 28, 29, 59, 70, 76, 81, 83–86, 93, 108–109, 135, 147 Eisner, M. 124, 128, 149 Eitle, T. L. M 111, 120 England xiv, 3–34, 55, 57–59 EPI 3, 13, 22, 28–29, 59, 70, 107, 109, 111, 120, 135, 147 Equal opportunities 55, 129, 134, 141; see also race equality Equality 13, 20, 52, 70, 83, 89, 91, 109, 117, 120, 128, 133, 137–139, 142–143, 147; see also Race equality; Equal opportunities Ethnic disproportionality 12, 75, 77–78, 88–89, 110–111, 117, 119, 123, 124 Ethnic minorities 57, 67, 69, 78, 81, 86–88, 90, 114, 118, 138, 140, 143, 145; see also ethnic disproportionality; overrepresentations; pupil characteristics; exclusion statistics Excluded pupils characteristics 59, 71, 106, 136, 142, 144, 146

152  Index

Exclusions statistics xi, 3, 6–8, 17–20, 22, 23, 27–29, 57, 70, 76–78, 80, 85, 94–95, 107, 114, 145 Families facing multiple challenges 24, 51, 80, 99, 137 Farouk, S. 20, 29 Farrell, P. 117, 120 Farrington, P. 124, 149 Feggins-Azziz, L. R. 123, 149 Fenning 111, 120 Ferguson L. 15, 39, 57, 123 Ferron JM. 123 Fixed period 5, 6, 13, 16–17, 19, 28–29, 35, 57, 59, 70, 76–77, 91, 93–94, 98, 109, 132, 136, 147 Fletcher, J. 4, 15, 59, 110, 103 Flint, A. 123 Focus group xi, 8, 16, 18, 28, 50–51, 55, 84, 136 Ford, T. 60, 70, 71, 122, 148 Fordyce, M. 71, 122, 148 Forehand, R. 56, 57 Fragmentation of the education system 10, 17–18, 20, 28, 112, 117, 119, 137, 140 Gallannaugh, F. 5, 13, 120 Garner, P. 111, 121, 147 Garrett, L. 123 Gazeley L. 20, 29, 71, 69 Gender and school exclusions 15, 58, 77, 117, 120, 123–124, 130, 138, 142 Gerewitz, J. 148 Gillborn, D. 4, 14, 75, 83, 91, 108–109, 111–113, 121, 124, 135, 147 Gillespie, J. 5, 14 Good practice, exclusions 132–134, 139, 141–142 González, T. 111, 121, 133–134, 139, 147 Gordon, A. 33, 58, 60, 69, 71 Government policy 18, 26 Governors, schools 8–12, 17–18, 24, 28, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 61, 80–82, 86, 94, 96, 99, 105, 108, 111, 136–137, 139, 141 Graham, B. 4, 5, 14, 130, 139, 147 Graham, L. 14 Green C, 14 Gregory, A. 133, 139, 148 Guardian 5, 6, 30, 78, 91 Gypsy/Roma 26, 75–77, 90, 95, 116, 118, 136–137, 140 Gwernan 60–61, 71

Handy 118, 121, 143, 148 Hayden, C. 59, 61, 71 Hayes, R. 148, 122 Headteachers xi, xiv, 8–10, 17–18, 21, 25, 33, 36, 44, 46, 50, 52, 55–57, 65, 69, 78–79, 81, 85, 90, 99, 107, 137–139 Hodge 68–70 Horwitz, S. 14 House of Common Library 3, 14, 18, 21, 28–29, 33–34, 58–59, 70, 109, 121, 135, 148 Hutcheson, G. 120 Iadicola P. 118, 122, 148 Implications for policy, practice, and research 11–12, 22–23, 33, 52, 55, 58, 90, 123, 139, 140–147; see also Central government; Local Authorities; school leaders; Mult-academy Trusts; research communities Inclusion 8, 9, 23, 34, 41, 46–48, 55, 65, 87, 98, 99, 101–102, 117, 119–121, 128–130, 132, 134–135, 130, 141–142, 144; see also equality; equal opportunities; social Justice; restorative justice Inclusive and nurturing education 130, 132, 139, 149 Informal exclusions xiv, 6, 21–22, 137 Institutional racism 3, 4, 11, 78, 79–81, 88, 90–91, 113–114, 121, 137–138, 140 IPPR 3, 4, 14, 24, 25–29, 59, 71, 75, 81, 84, 91, 106–108, 110–113, 116–117, 121, 135, 140, 148 Irvine, J. J. 83, 92, 111, 112, 118–119, 135, 149 Johnstone, M. 33, 58, 71, 122 Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) 26, 28, 33, 34 Joseph, A. 33, 34, 58 Kane, J. 122, 148 Kay, L. xiv, 49, 58, 61, 71 Kenchington, R. 122, 131, 148 Kendall, S. 121 Kinder, K. 56, 58 Kingdon, G. 87, 90, 119 Knoff, H.M. 111, 123 Kohler, K. 123, 149 Lawrence, J. 29, 33, 58 Lawrence, T. 29 League tables 18, 20, 55, 141 Learning mentors xii, 9, 33–36, 46, 57 Lindorff, A. 110, 111, 117, 124

Index  153

Lindsay, G. 93, 107, 110, 111, 117, 124, 135, 149 Liu,Y. 11, 17, 121 Lloyd, G. 61, 71, 122, 148 Local Authority (LA) xii, 8, 19–23, 26, 28, 35, 50, 55, 99, 105–106, 115, 132, 133, 136, 140–142, 144 Ludwin, G. 122, 135, 148 Marketisation of education 18–20 Marrable, T. 29 Massey, S 72, 124, 149 May, S. 15, 123, 149 Maylor 113, 122 McCluskey, G. 3, 13, 29, 33, 58, 112, 114, 117, 119, 122, 134, 139, 148 McDonald, L. 123 McDonald, T. 76 McGlaighlin, A. 58 McIntyre 60–61, 71 McKown, C. 83, 91, 122 Mclean, M. xi, 24–25, 29, 39, 49, 57, 61, 70, 81, 83, 87–88, 90–91, 93, 109, 112–114, 118–120, 128, 130, 134 Mcloughlin, S. 111, 122, 135, 138, 143, 148 Meierkord, A 91, 129, 147 Menzi, L. 122 Meridth, M. 14 Michael, R. S. 15, 118, 123, 133, 149 Middleton, T. xiv, 58, 61, 71 Miller, A. 56, 58, 83 Miller, G. 33, 58 Milliard, W. 113, 122 Milner, S. 121 Mixed White and the Black Caribbean 5, 75, 90, 118, 138, 143 Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) xii, 94 Moore, D. 71, 112, 122, 128, 131, 138, 148 Mortimore 60, 71 Multi-academy Trusts 19, 132, 144 Multi-agency 131–132, 133–135, 139, 141–142 Multiple challenges 24, 51, 80, 99, 137 Munn, P. xiv, 33, 58, 61, 69, 71, 114, 117, 122 Nardo, A. C. 15, 123, 118, 133, 149 National Curriculum 22, 118 New Zealand 13, 60, 72, 83, 113, 115, 116, 118, 123, 133, 134 Nichols, D. 122, 148 Noltemeyer, L. 111, 122, 135, 138, 143, 148 Northern Ireland 87, 114–115, 119–122

O’Neill, H. 123 Off rolling xiv, xv, 3, 6, 10, 14, 16, 19, 21–23, 28–30, 34–35, 53–55, 58, 66, 69, 70–71, 96, 106–110, 117, 119, 121–122 Ofsted xiii, xv, 3, 6, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, 55, 58–59, 70–71, 91, 107, 110, 117, 119, 121, 122, 135, 144, 148 Oswald, D. P. 120, 147 Overrepresentation 57, 79, 84, 86, 103, 117, 120, 144, 106; see also reasons for exclusions Palinkas L. 8, 14 Parekh, B. 113, 122 Parents xi, 3, 7–18, 27–28, 31, 35–71, 80–82, 86, 88–89, 94, 96, 99–104, 107, 111, 129, 131, 136, 137–142, 145–146 parents and communities 3, 107 Parker, C. 60, 68–69, 71 Parsons, C. 3, 4, 16, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 59, 61, 69, 71–72, 75, 81, 91, 106, 107, 110–111, 118–119, 122–123, 132, 135, 139, 148 Partridge 112, 123, 131, 138, 139, 148 Paternoster, R. 149, 149 Patton, M. Q. 8, 14 Payne, A. A. 146, 149 Permanent exclusion xiv, xv, 5, 6, 16–22, 28, 35, 39, 40, 47, 50, 53, 56–59, 67, 76–77, 94, 119, 122, 132, 135–137, 145–146 Personal, Social and Emotional health education (PSHE) xiii Peterson, E. 123, 118 Peterson, R. 15, 133, 149 Physical assault 16, 17, 137 Pickles, A. 70 Plano VL. 8, 13, 111, 120 Polat, F. 120 Policies 23, 28, 35, 53, 65, 78, 93, 100, 111, 140, 145, 147 Poloni-Staudinger, L. 123, 149 Potter, S. 14, 147 Poverty 4, 10, 16, 23, 24–43, 57, 67, 77–78, 86–87, 114, 118, 123, 137, 149 Poverty factor 25, 78, 86, 137 Power, S. 3, 14, 59, 72, 114–115, 123, 135, 148 Pupil characteristics, exclusion 72, 93, 94, 145 Pupil Referral Units 29, 70, 109 Qualitative research 18, 14; see also case studies; focus group Quantative research 17, 136 Quasi Market 18, 27, 140

154  Index

R. Whear, R. 71 Rabe-Hesketh, S. 70 Race equality 87, 128, 143; see also equality; equal opportunities Racism 3–4, 11, 14, 30, 78–81, 89–91, 110, 113–114, 117–122, 127, 137, 138, 140, 143, 146, 148; see also institutional racism Raffaele, LM. 5, 14, 111–112, 115, 118–119, 123, 133, 148 Rajania, A. 91, 120, 147 Rausch, M. K. 15, 123, 149 Reasons for exclusions 3, 16–27, 28, 55, 99, 127, 141, 146 Restorative approaches 122, 131–133, 135, 139 Restorative Justice 27, 62, 122, 129 Restorative practice 122, 133–135, 142, 148 Reynolds, M. 115, 121 Riddell, S. 71, 114, 117, 122, 148 Ritter, D. R. 33, 58 Ritter, S. 33, 58, 123, 149 Rocque, M. 146, 149 Rogers, M. 7, 122, 131, 148 Rollock, N. 124 Rosen, J. 114, 123 RSA 41, 48, 112, 123, 128, 131–134, 139, 142, 148–149 Rubie-Davies, C.M. 113, 123 Ruck, M.D. 5, 15, 83–84, 91, 111–112, 115, 118–119, 123, 124, 135, 149 Rudd, T. 5, 111, 115, 123 Runnymede 41, 81, 91 School ethos 130, 131 School leaders 3, 7, 10–11, 25–26, 28, 33–34, 55, 59, 60–61, 88, 90, 105, 107–108, 132–133, 141–142, 147 School policy 93, 120, 140 Scotland 13, 42, 84, 85 Searle, C. 13 Sellstrom 61, 72 SEN disproportionality 73, 93, 111 Single parent 42, 43, 78, 84–85 Skiba, R. J. 5, 15, 111–112, 117–119, 123, 133, 135, 138, 143, 149 Smith 14, 60, 72, 120–121, 148 Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) Needs xiii, 27, 35, 42, 48, 96, 98, 117, 119, 124, 145 Social justice 122, 140 Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) 7, 11, 45, 96, 110–111, 124, 136 Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) xi, xii, 8–12, 17, 26, 33,

45–46, 48–49, 55–57, 88, 94, 96–97, 99, 102, 106–108, 111, 136, 137, 140–144 Special schools 5, 16, 17, 19, 117 Stake, R.E. 9, 15 Stamou E. 4, 15, 114, 123 Stead, J. 122, 148 Steed, M. 33, 58 Stein, K. 71 Stereotyping 3, 11, 78, 82–83, 88, 90, 114, 119 Strand, S. 4, 15, 59, 72, 93, 107, 110–111, 113, 122–124, 135 Street, C. 14, 147 Suspensions 3–5, 12, 14, 112, 115, 116, 118–121, 128, 139, 141–142, 145 Sutherland, A. 119, 124, 149 Sutton, J. 70, 120 Tackling exclusions: Good practice 12, 127–135, 138–139 Talbert-Johnson, C. 118, 149 Tawell, A. 29, 119, 129, 124 Taylor, C. 14, 72, 123, 148 Teachers low expectations 3, 11, 78, 81, 88, 90, 112, 114, 137 Teaching Assistants 8, 9, 25, 49, 105, 129, 135 Tenenbaum, H.R. 5, 15, 83–84, 91, 111–112, 115, 118–119, 124, 149 Thomas, G. 71 Thompson, I. 29, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124 Thompson-Coon, T. 5, 71 Timmermans, A. 91, 120 Timpson, D. 3, 14–16, 26, 28, 30, 33, 34, 49, 57–59, 72, 75, 90, 92–93, 106–108, 110, 114, 117–119 Tobin, T. 15, 123, 149 Travellers of Irish Heritage pupils 76, 90, 118, 137 Tretheway, A. 122 Ttofi, M. 124, 149 Types of exclusions, see Fixed exclusions, Informal exclusions, Internal exclusions, Off-rolling, permanent exclusions, alternative provisions Unconscious bias 11, 83, 112–113, 137, 137–138, 141 United Kingdom 5, 88, 115, 118, 120, 134, 143 United States of America (USA) 4, 7, 10, 29, 83, 115, 117, 118, 129, 134, 139, 145 Unofficial exclusion 13, 106, 135 Upton, G. 120

Index  155

Valdebenito, S. 112, 124, 149, 133, 139 Victoria State Government 58, 101, 110 Villegas, A. M. 83, 92, 111–112, 118–119, 124, 135, 149 Vincent, C. 113, 124 Visser, J. 70, 120 Wales 88, 90, 114–115, 116, 120, 123 Wallace, C. 112, 118, 124 Wallace, J., 124 Watson, P. 123 Weale, S. 22, 30 Weedon, E. 122, 148 Weekes, D. 58 Weinstein, R. S. 91, 122

Welch, K. 149, 146 Werf, M. 91, 120 White, C. 14, 147 Wilkin, A. 58 Wilson, M. 5, 15, 59, 72, 111, 118–119, 124, 135, 143, 149 Wisdom J, 14 Wolstenholme 68–70 Wortley, S. 123 Wright C. 3, 4, 15, 33, 58, 75, 84, 92, 114, 124 Wu, T. 123, 149 Young, P. 58 Yull, G. 15, 72, 149