There is a good deal of policy commentary following the new guidance updated in February 2015. There are numerous articles exploring the issues and complexities of exclusion. The protocol for exclusion featured as a agenda point and a lengthy, invigorated debate ensured and for good reason. I happened to be sitting in between our Director for Inclusion and VP for Student Welfare and listened to their experienced and informed responses. The conversation was tempered by personal experiences, professional challenges and concerns. It was particularly relevant to me, given my interest in the progress of our SEND pupils, as of the 270,000 pupils excluded for a fixed period, 5,000 permanently, two-thirds are SEND pupils.
*And more recently 2018, significant coverage on the practice of off-rolling of students under accountability pressures.
Our conversation should have been framed by our current Behaviour for Learning policy and the key points from the new guidance, however the conversation was vociferous. What are the benchmarks? What behaviour is considered permissible and what is not? What is the quality of provision for excluded pupils? What is our integration philosophy?
It is important to note that in the 2015 guidance it is sufficient for just one condition to be met. Furthermore that the second bullet has been lowered, instead of reading “serious harm,” (2012) to the “education/welfare of the pupil of others in the school.”
What I was not aware of was that a fixed period exclusion does not have to be for a continuous period. It was also important to note that it is the Head teachers responsibility to take into account “their legal duty of care when sending a pupil home following an exclusion.” My colleague, regularly emphasises the importance pupil safety when not in school.
Where a pupil has received multiple exclusions or is approaching the legal limit of 45 school days of fixed period exclusion in an academic year, head teachers should consider whether exclusion is providing an effective sanction.
I was concerned by this paragraph. I hope most Head Teachers would be questioning the strategy of exclusions well before 45 school days?
The conversation around the table was very clear. We must do what is right for the pupils of our school, pupils at risk of permanent exclusion and those pupils respecting the school behaviour expectations. There was a healthy debate on the importance and resounding support for restorative practice.The importance of reintegrating pupils that return to school following a fixed period exclusion, and for managing their future behaviour.
On re-posting this blog post Sarah Roscoe @proudHT (New in post as Executive Head Teacher for TBAP East) added
This is ringing so true…thank you for writing this. I believe there is another piece missing…teaching our children replacement behaviours…helping them to understand themselves better and what their triggers are…giving them an “alternative”educational experience…
And I think her comment best fits here?
The Inspectors Handbook includes an interesting footnote. As always, know your school. Know the patterns of permanent and fixed-period exclusions for different groups of pupils. The impact on behaviour of fixed-period exclusion and the impact of the school’s work to follow up and support excluded pupils. The use and impact of internal exclusion.
[qr_code_display]