Developments on Exclusions

What was always viewed as good practice in permanent exclusion was the notion that no Headteacher (for it is the Head, or teacher in charge if the Head is off site, who may execute the decision to exclude) should rush to a decision.  In particular, when considering whether to permanently exclude a pupil, that a Head should take their time to reflect on the seriousness of the offence by first imposing a fixed term exclusion and then, if deemed appropriate, to ‘convert’ the fixed term exclusion into a permanent exclusion.  However, the Government’s recent decision to amend the statutory guidance has thrown (apparently) this good practice above up in the air.

The statutory guidance now tells us ‘the law does not allow for extending a fixed-period exclusion or ‘converting’ a fixed-period exclusion into a permanent exclusion.’  However closer analysis shows that all is not lost, for the guidance does say ‘(I)n exceptional cases, usually where further evidence has come to light, a further fixed-period exclusion may be issued to begin immediately after the first period ends; or a permanent exclusion may be issued to begin immediately after the end of the fixed period.’

Why is all not lost?  Well, firstly it is clear from the wording that a Headteacher may still issue a fixed period exclusion and subsequently issue a permanent exclusion as before.  One would need to be careful that the fixed period exclusion letter does not suggest that the exclusion may yet be converted into a permanent exclusion, although there is nothing wrong or unlawful in saying that permanent exclusion may yet be considered to be the appropriate sanction.

Secondly, the qualification about issuing a further fixed-period exclusion or permanent exclusion (‘exceptional cases’) is itself qualified by the phrase ‘usually where further evidence…’  ‘Exceptional’ is not defined, so it could be for reasons other than “further evidence” for example the behaviour itself.

Exclusion of any kind is controversial once more. A report published in October 2017 highlighted the link between school exclusion and the most vulnerable, with one in two excluded pupils having a recognised mental health need; 80% having a special educational need or disability; and it being more likely that an excluded child will be from a deprived family background. It claimed that 48,000 pupils were being educated in alternative provision.

Another facet of exclusions, or to be more accurate the attempt to avoid exclusion, is the increasing controversy around unlawful removals: where parents are asked to take their child home for a period of time but it is not recorded as a formal exclusion; or worse where parents are pressured, or ‘encouraged’ into removing their child from school altogether. The report claimed that the number of pupils being electively home educated had more than doubled over the previous 4 years.

If unlawful exclusions are on the increase one may yet see further changes in the exclusion regime to make it yet more difficult to exclude and/or remove children from roll in the first place.