½¿É«µ¼º½

This blog post explores links between school exclusions, teacher–pupil relationships and school culture. Specifically, it considers how what is prioritised and considered normal within a school determines the nature of teacher–student relationships (DfE, 2019).

School culture and exclusion

External factors such as home circumstances, poverty, specific learning difficulties and mental health issues are frequently associated with students’ vulnerability and their exclusion from school. Yet, the role that schools may play in either mitigating or exacerbating exclusion risk is often overlooked. A telling indicator is that most exclusions occur in the final three years of compulsory schooling, when students are preparing for national exams that are also key performance indicators for schools. For example, in , exclusion rates were 0.11 per cent in year 7 and 0.35 per cent in year 10. School leaders (see Greany & Higham, 2018) and teachers (see DfE, 2019) have acknowledged that some exclusions in these years are aimed at improving school performance, with some describing them as ‘avoidable exclusions’.

Schools have often failed to be inclusive, expecting students to conform to rigid systems focused on academic results (Farouk, 2017). In 2024, the government highlighted the connection between school culture and exclusion rates, calling for constructive engagement with vulnerable students and the phasing out of .

Relationships with vulnerable students

While students who are ready to learn are provided with academic support, vulnerable students – those who struggle to conform – receive less attention and support. The argument is that there is insufficient time in the school day to both raise performance and support ‘high-maintenance’ students (see Munn & Lloyd, 2005). The Timpson Review of School Exclusion reveals that teachers have limited time to engage with students who do not fit the school culture (DfE, 2019). However, time is not a fixed resource – it reflects institutional and individual priorities. Schools and teachers choose how to allocate their time between boosting performance and supporting vulnerable students. The case made here is that investing time in building relationships with these students is worthwhile.

‘Schools and teachers choose how to allocate their time between boosting performance and supporting vulnerable students … investing time in building relationships with these students is worthwhile.’

Dialogue and engagement

As an illustration, from our research on exclusion, a young woman permanently excluded from school described how her parents’ nightly arguments affected her emotional wellbeing and academic performance (Farouk & Edwards, 2026). She recounted:

I would not talk to anyone for hours; I was in my own world with my parents shouting at each other at home. I was either crying or just by myself, and I didn’t feel like going to lessons either, I was tired or I was sitting on my own as others didn’t like me. … My grades dropped and my teachers tried to get me back on track by telling me to do the work, but they didn’t really care enough. … Eventually, it went to the deputy head, and she just told me that I needed to do something because I was literally failing.

Eventually, she was permanently excluded from the school. This account highlights the absence of genuine engagement. The student was aware of her academic decline but was not given the opportunity to share a fuller narrative. Communication with her remained ‘thin’ and decontextualised, avoiding deeper involvement with the student by the school.

Our own intervention in which we counselled 13-to-14-year-old students at risk of exclusion suggests that such vulnerable students benefit from open, two-sided dialogue rather than brief, directive conversations. Here, we created dialogic spaces between students, their teachers (and initially their parents) where they discussed systemic, social or personal barriers that restricted the student’s learning and agreed interventions that might address these barriers. We then engaged with students and their teachers on a regular basis, as necessary to help them improve their academic performance (see Farouk & Edwards, 2020).

Conclusion

This blog post argues that school culture and institutional priorities significantly influence exclusion rates. A narrow focus on academic performance often sidelines vulnerable students who need relational support. Schools that prioritise relationships and open dialogue can reduce exclusions and better support all students. The challenge lies in rethinking how time and relationships are valued within the school system.

References

Department for Education [DfE]. (2019). Timpson review of school exclusion.

Farouk, S. (2014). From mainstream school to pupil referral unit: A change in teachers’ self-understanding. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(1), 19–31.

Farouk, S. (2017). My life as a pupil: The autobiographical memories of adolescents excluded from school. Journal of Adolescence, 55(1), 16–23.

Farouk, S., & Edwards, S. (2020). Narrative counselling for adolescents at risk of exclusion from school. British Journal of Counselling and Guidance, 49(4), 553–564. ÌýÌý

Farouk, S., & Edwards, S. (2026). The autobiographical memories of young adults excluded from schools [Manuscript submitted for publication].

Fielding, M. (2006). Leadership, radical student engagement and the necessity of person-centred education. International Journal Leadership in Education, 9(4), 299–313.

Greany, T., & Higham, R. (2018). Hierarchy, markets and networks: Analysing the ‘self-improving school-led system’ agenda in England and the implications for schools. UCL Institute of Education Press.

Munn, P., & Lloyd, G. (2005). Exclusion and excluded pupils. British Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 205–221.