��ɫ����

The Department for Education has released its data on for the 2023/24 academic year, revealing a troubling rise. Suspensions rose 21 per cent, nearing one million (954,952, up from 786,961 in 2022/23) and permanent exclusions increased 16 per cent, to 10,885. Students most likely to be excluded are those facing multiple disadvantages, pointing to a deepening pattern of inequality. Students eligible to receive free school meals were over four times more likely to be suspended and more than five times more likely to be permanently excluded. Students with special educational needs faced similar rates of suspension and exclusion. Gypsy Roma, Irish Traveller, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, and Black Caribbean pupils were also disproportionately excluded. These figures do not include illegal or informal exclusions, meaning the extent of the issue may be underestimated.

Exclusion as a last resort?

The most common reason for exclusion was ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’, suggesting that behaviour management approaches are not sufficiently addressing minor behavioural infractions, and exclusion – schools’ most serious punishment – is being used as a routine management tool. If exclusions were effective, rates would not rise each year; students would not repeat punished behaviours (Tillson & Oxley, 2020).

Nevertheless, English policy frames exclusion as an ‘essential management tool’ that is ‘. The Department for Education’s guidance provides detail on searching pupils and using reasonable force, but makes limited mention of restorative or inclusive practices. It neglects unmet needs and school-level factors like curriculum or environment, instead promoting ‘self-discipline’ and ‘proper regard for authority’ (pp. 8–9). The idea that exclusion is used as a last resort appears tokenistic, particularly since the guidance discourages schools from adopting ‘no exclusion’ policies (p. 3), despite strong evidence of success in Scotland (see McCluskey et al., 2019).

This stance systematically entrenches the marginalisation of students already facing significant structural disadvantage. Exclusion correlates with compounded disadvantage, restricted attainment and limited life chances (Valdebenito, 2018). In attained five A*–C grades, compared to 53.5 per cent in mainstream schools. Exclusion is also associated with risk of criminality and exploitation, and is a known pathway into serious violence and gang-related activity, including recruitment into county lines (Home Office, 2018; Glover Williams & Finlay, 2018; NCA, 2019).

Entrenching inequality

‘Exclusion is harming already vulnerable children, disproportionately affecting poor, racialised and disabled pupils, with little evidence it improves school environments.’

Nearing one million suspensions in a single year reflects systemic failure. Exclusion is harming already vulnerable children, disproportionately affecting poor, racialised and disabled pupils, with little evidence it improves school environments. While safe and productive learning spaces are essential, the overuse of exclusion for minor behaviours is deeply concerning. English exclusion policy must be urgently reformed.

Policy shapes practice, including definitions of challenging behaviour and how schools respond to this (Bacchi, 2009). Scotland is an excellent example: policy refers to exclusions as a last resort, which is demonstrated in practice as only three children were permanently excluded in 2018/19, compared to 7,894 during the same period in England. This clearly demonstrates the power of more inclusive alternatives. Scottish guidance, contrastingly titled ‘, notes that ‘all behaviour is communication’, and recommends holistic, welfare-based responses. Welsh policy, too, is grounded in children’s rights, balancing discipline with educational inclusion, resulting in lower exclusion rates. Why is English policy so far behind?

Rethinking exclusion

Children deserve understanding and compassion. Exclusion does not improve behaviour; it deepens marginalisation. Future guidance must recognise the harm exclusions cause and offer practical alternatives. Exclusion is not inevitable; it is a policy choice that reinforces inequality and compounds disadvantage. Scotland (see Tawell & McCluskey, 2022) and Wales (see Power & Taylor, 2024) demonstrate that exclusion can be drastically reduced when policies prioritise inclusion and wellbeing. Policymakers, researchers and practitioners alike must now consider: How can England move from exclusionary discipline towards approaches that address behaviour through inclusion, welfare and rights? Further, how can international education policy move closer to treating inclusion as a universal right rather than a policy choice?

References

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy. Pearson Higher Education AU.

Glover Williams, A., & Finlay, F. (2018). County lines: How gang crime is affecting our young people. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 104(8).

Home Office. (2018). Serious violence strategy.

McCluskey, G., Cole, T., Daniels, H., Thompson, I., & Tawell, A. (2019). Exclusion from school in Scotland and across the UK: Contrasts and questions. British Educational Research Journal, 45(6), 1140–1159.

National Crime Agency [NCA]. (2019). County lines drug supply, vulnerability and harm 2018.

Power, S., & Taylor, C. (2024). Rights, rules and remedies: Interrogating the policy discourse of school exclusion in Wales. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 45(1), 88–100.

Tawell, A., & McCluskey, G. (2022). Utilising Bacchi’s what’s the problem represented to be? (WPR) approach to analyse national school exclusion policy in England and Scotland: A worked example. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 137–149.

Tillson, J., & Oxley, L. (2020). Children’s moral rights and UK school exclusions. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 40–58.

Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Sutherland, A. (2018). School‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), i–216.