Memorandum submitted by Carl Parsons,
Visiting Professor of Educational and Social Inclusion, Centre
for Children, Schools and Families, University of Greenwich
Achieving zero permanent exclusions from school,
social justice and economy
INTRODUCTION
Zero exclusion schools are possible. More realistically,
clusters of schools, with support, coordination and brokering
by the local authority (LA) or through local partnerships, can
organise and sustain an inclusive educational community. Exclusion
from school is a quiet mockery of Every Child Matters.
Even with the coalition government's abandonment of the requirements
for local attendance and behaviour partnerships (due to be in
place from September, 2010) and even with the Academies Act in
place, it still makes sense in terms of social justice, educational
and child support and saving money to reduce exclusions. This
paper looks at the social justice case through secondary data
and reports research and action about how committed local authorities
along with their communities can successfully reduce or eliminate
permanent exclusions. All political persuasions can sign up to
this and prevent harm which is experienced disproportionately
by some groups.
The Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from
School project set out to explore not whether permanent or
fixed period exclusions should be banned but whether they could
become unnecessary. Focussing initially on three low excluding
LAs and then on five high excluding LAs, this work shows that
local authorities have a powerful influence on school exclusion
levels. At the local strategic level, provision can be organised
for all pupils through collective education and children's services
action.
Three factors motivated the Strategic Alternatives
action project in 2005: a conviction that power and control in
education is exercised to an important degree at the corporate
level in LAs through elected members and senior officers; the
top 15 LA excluders had an average permanent exclusion rate (0.21%)
seven times higher than the average for the 15 lowest excluders
(national mean 0.11%—2004-05); low excluders appeared to
be able to maintain their low excluder position over time. In
the two year project (Parsons, 2009), three of the project LAs
reduced fixed period exclusions, including one which had been
the highest permanent excluder in 2003-04. Some secondary schools
used newly opened Inclusion Centres or Learning Support Units
as substitutes for fixed term exclusion, recognising that the
time off school usually meant that pupils, who were not generally
on top of their work, would get even further behind. While fixed
term exclusions were increasing nationally, three of the LAs were
able to reduce their rates.
Reduction in the permanent exclusions in the
five high excluding LAs was through the efforts of the LAs, their
schools, children's services and some coordinated contribution
from the voluntary sector, rather than the project. As well as
the provisions mentioned above, managed moves (Abdelnoor, 2008)
and alternative curricula played key parts. All had reduced their
rates from 2004-05 levels one achieving a reduction to one quarter
of the national rate by 2008-09.
Advances made in reducing exclusions since 1997
by the Labour government should not be discarded lightly by the
new administration. However, there are continuing concerns about
current legislation and guidance and the operation of procedures
at LA and school level. The main concerns are in relation to:
— the paradoxical logic of removing children
from education, a state provision seen as important to individual
development as well as national economic and social progress;
— the treatment of vulnerable children;
— social justice in terms of the disproportionate
exclusions of some groups; and
— the apparent tension between Every
Child Matters and the use of permanent exclusion against a
small proportion of children, with fixed period exclusions applied
to about 3% of the school population, a proportion of whom receive
multiple fixed period exclusions.
This paper is divided into a number of sections,
mainly reviewing secondary data, in most instances showing data
for TWO years to illustrate that inequities are recurrent, systematic
and known. The sections which follow are:
Zero and low excluding local authorities.
Social justice and exclusions.
Strategies for low or zero exclusions.
Zero and low excluding local authorities.
Table 1 shows that there were 17 zero excluding
local authorities in 2008-09, up from 12 in 2007-08. Many of these
have sustained very low or zero exclusions for two or more years.
It can be done. The advantages of managing provision in a non-exclusionary
way are massive in terms of reduced conflict and better outcomes
at no net cost. The message can be more effectively spread using
evidence even more than through moral exhortation! Of the
LAs achieving zero exclusions in the latest figures, many have
sustained this position over two or more years. 31 out of 150
LAs, 20%, count as low or zero permanent excluders.
Table 1
LOWEST RATES OF PERMANENT EXCLUSION 2008-09
| Local Authority |
Number of permanent exclusions | Percentage of the school population
|
| National average |
6,550 | 0.09 |
| 1 | Barnsley | 0
| 0.00 |
| 2 | Brighton and Hove | x
| 0.00 |
| 3 | City of London
| 0 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Isles of Scilly
| 0 | 0.00 |
| 5 | North East Lincolnshire
| x | 0.00 |
| 6 | North Lincolnshire |
0 | 0.00 |
| 7 | North Tyneside | 0
| 0.00 |
| 8 | Portsmouth | x
| 0.00 |
| 9 | Rotherham | x
| 0.00 |
| 10 | Rutland |
x | 0.00 |
| 11 | Sheffield | x
| 0.00 |
| 12 | St. Helens | 0
| 0.00 |
| 13 | Waltham Forest | 0
| 0.00 |
| 14 | West Berkshire | x
| 0.00 |
| 15 | Wigan | x
| 0.00 |
| 16 | Wolverhampton | 0
| 0.00 |
| 17 | York | x
| 0.00 |
| 18 | Leicester | 10
| 0.01 |
| 19 | Cambridgeshire | 10
| 0.02 |
| 20 | Cornwall | 10
| 0.02 |
| 21 | Cumbria | 10
| 0.02 |
| 22 | Medway | 10
| 0.02 |
| 23 | Slough | 10
| 0.02 |
| 24 | Southend-on-Sea | 10
| 0.02 |
| 25 | Blackpool | 10
| 0.03 |
| 26 | Bolton | 10
| 0.03 |
| 27 | Bradford | 30
| 0.03 |
| 28 | Dorset | 20
| 0.03 |
| 29 | East Riding of Yorkshire
| 10 | 0.03 |
| 30 | Kingston upon Thames |
10 | 0.03 |
| 31 | Stockton-on-Tees | 10
| 0.03 |
| | |
|
x is as given in DfE statistics. The three very small LAs are
in italics
Table 2 shows that in Wales permanent exclusion rates have
been fairly low and often at half the rate for England. Scotland
and Northern Ireland have done better, with rates which are less
than a quarter of those in England. It is clear from both the
figures and the commentaries on those countries' websites that
a different commitment to the care and well-being of all children
prevails.
Table 2
PERCENTAGE RATES OF PERMANENT EXCLUSION IN THE COUNTRIES
OF THE UK
| 2006-07 | 2007-08
| 2008-09 |
| Northern Ireland | 0.02 |
0.01 | 0.01 |
| Scotland | 0.04 | 0.02
| 0.02 |
| Wales | 0.05 | 0.05
| 0.05 |
| England | 0.12 | 0.11
| 0.09 |
SOCIAL JUSTICE
AND EXCLUSIONS
Exclusion is a disciplinary response from a school and has
no forward plan for the child and no coherent vision of the educational
community's responsibility for making provision to meet need.
It is a punitive response, however regretfully administered. It
removes an alleged problem from the school, but it causes great
anguish and hardship for the child and family and increases problems
for other services to deal with the child following exclusion.
There are more effective, efficient and caring ways of managing
the challenges at the level of the LA and school clusters with
support from other agencies (Parsons, 2009). Camila Batmanghelidjh
(2005) and her work with Kids Company demonstrates another, more
responsible and caring ethical position.
Some groups are disproportionately excluded. Those from poorer
backgrounds as indicated by free school meals, those with special
educational needs and some ethnic groups are excluded at up to
three times the average rate. Figure 1 shows the rates for permanent
exclusions of ethnic minorities for England as a whole. While
within the White group Gypsy-Roma and Traveller children are excluded
at even higher rates (not shown), the substantially higher than
average rates for some ethnic minority groups stubbornly persist
year on year. There are arguments to be made about the education
system not being adjusted to meet the needs, expectations and
attributes of some parts of the citizenry (Parsons et al, 2005).
Figure 1
PERMANENT EXCLUSIONS IN ENGLAND BY ETHNICITY IN 2007-08
AND 2008-09
Figure 2
FIXED PERIOD EXCLUSIONS IN ENGLAND BY ETHNICITY IN 2007-08
AND 2008-09
There were 6,550 permanent exclusions in 2008-09 (down from
8,130 in 2007-08). 5,000 were white, 1,520 were ethnic minorities.
Of these, 360 were of "mixed ethnicity" and 540 were
from the three Black groups. The disproportionate exclusions nationally
of White and Black Caribbean, Black Caribbean and Black Other
are plain to see in the graphs.
DfES research on minority ethnic exclusions and the Race
Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 concluded that "the disproportionalities,
in terms of exclusion and attainment, are institutionally racist
outcomes routinely produced as a matter of organisational practice"
(Parsons, 2008: 401). Looking at the graphs carefully, it would
seem that for permanent exclusions, for those three highest excluded
groups shown, the disproportionality is significantly reduced,
less pronounced for fixed period exclusions as shown in Figure
2. Maybe there is some movement towards Getting it; Getting it
Right (DfES, 2007) but the scale of the difference has been, and
remains, disturbing.
Figure 3
RATES OF PERMANENT EXCLUSIONS IN ENGLAND BY SEN STATUS
IN 2007-08 AND 2008-09
Seventy one percent of permanently excluded children in both
years were on the special needs register. As shown in Figure 3,
they are two and a half times as likely to be excluded if they
have a statement (many of these will be in special schools) and
continuing to be three times as likely if on the register of special
needs without a statement. This is one of the clearest cases of
not having an educational system designed to meet need. Some refer
to it as scandalous.
Deprivation measures are strongly associated with exclusions.
Figure 4 shows that generally exclusion rates decline with affluence.
Table 3 shows that, at the level of individuals, those with a
free school meal entitlement are about two and half times as likely
to be excluded permanently and a little over twice as likely to
be excluded for a fixed period than other pupils.
Figure 4
RATES OF FIXED PERIOD EXCLUSIONS BY DEPRIVATION QUINTILE
OF SCHOOLS' INTAKE 2008-09
Table 3
EXCLUSIONS BY FREE SCHOOL MEAL STATUS
| Exclusions 2007-08
| Exclusions 2008-09 |
| Permanent exclusions | Number of exclusions
| % of school population | Number of exclusions
| % of school population |
| Pupils eligible for free school meals | 3,050
| 0.28 | 2,480 | 0.22
|
| Other pupils | 5,020 | 0.08
| 3,900 | 0.06 |
| All pupils | 8,130
| 0.11 | 6,550
| 0.09 |
| Fixed period Exclusions |
| | | |
| Pupils eligible for free school meals | 126,920
| 11.56 | 124,190 | 11.10
|
| Other pupils | 255,950 |
4.02 | 237,880 | 3.77
|
| All pupils | 383,830
| 5.14 | 363,280
| 4.89 |
STRATEGIES FOR
LOW OR
ZERO EXCLUSIONS
It is important to recognise the pressures which give rise
to high rates of exclusion such as:
— Implicit exclusionary and punitive cultures.
— The "standards" agenda of the DfE and the
DCSF before it.
— Behaviour that is very risky—knives or drugs.
— Delay in getting the multi-agency support.
— The myth of eliciting support for the child through
exclusion.
— Parental non-cooperation.
— "Day 6" provision to be made by the school
for a pupil after five days of exclusion.
— The one-off incident which could not be predicted.
— Distribution of deprivation funding between least
and most deprived schools.
It is how an LA, its schools and children and families services
work to confront these pressures that is crucial. In low excluding
LAs, trust, speedy response and constructive, non punitive layers
of provision are robustly coordinated.
Exclusions are applied disproportionately to lower socio-economic
groups and some ethnic groups, which raises social justice issues.
Poorer children, as signified by free school meals entitlement,
and those of Black Caribbean heritage are much more likely to
be excluded as white children. Those with special needs are likewise
vulnerable to exclusions. The outcomes for permanently excluded
young people are generally poor and it is the plain, avoidable
absence from education that is the root cause.
There is a key strategic role for the LA or partnership in
reducing exclusions. The LA retains a political, financial and
moral power amongst the providers of services for children, including
education. The key strategic developments are:
1. Shared commitment across schools and LA members and officers
working with explicit principles and procedures.
2. Broadening the school by making more diverse and
multi-level provision in schools.
3. Building bridges so that managed moves can be organised
and school clusters can share the responsibilities.
4. Alternative provision involves finding or making a place
for every child.
5. Joining up the dots to make multiagency work effective.
6. Ethos, attitudes and sharing a vision, working at
hearts and minds to gain support for including all children and
responding to all needs.
A strategic inclusion agenda shown to work includes action
of the following kind:
1. Identify the credible inclusion champion at LA member level.
2. Negotiate speedily authority level changes in structures,
provision and staffing that headteachers will accept.
3. Ensure the lead is taken by a high ranking and well-paid
officer who has the authority and respect of heads and can do
business with them.
4. Support school leaders in diversifying their provision
and making best use of the diversified workforce in supporting
challenging young people and their families.
5. Establish agreement amongst schools about how pupils might
be moved from their current school, either permanently or temporarily,
building on personal relations between schools but creating fair
access protocols or points systems.
6. Develop a range of alternative curriculum providers, assessing
and monitoring that providers can meet targets and contribute
valuably to children's development including qualifications.
7. Ensure that the teams of other professionals are of appropriate
skill levels and can offer a fast response.
8. Create and recreate the sense of belief in the LA's duty
to provide calmly and restoratively for every child.
Zero exclusion schools and LAs work. Personal and collective
damage to individuals and families is reduced, some shocking,
persistent inequalities are reduced and some woeful lack of care
for special needs pupils and those growing up in deprived circumstances
is avoided. All this can be done in a way which is "cost
neutral" and does not damage attainment standards. No other
country in Europe does it as we do it in England and that should
also be a prompt to new thinking, new practice and real demonstration
of every child matters, whichever government is in power.
October 2010
REFERENCESAbdelnoor, A (2007)
Managed Moves: A Complete Guide to Managed Moves as an Alternative
to Permanent Exclusion, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
www.gulbenkian.org.uk/media/item/1229/216/Managed-moves-04_08.pdf
Batmanghelidjh, C (2007) Shattered Lives: Children Who Live
with Courage and Dignity, Philadelphia, PA, Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Council on Tribunals (2003) School Admissions and Exclusion
Appeal Panels—Special Report, London, Council on Tribunals.
DfES (2007) Priority Review: Exclusion of Black Pupils "Getting
it. Getting it Right", London, Department for Education
and Skills.
DCSF (2008) Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on
Exclusion from Schools and Pupil Referral Units, London: Department
for Children, Schools and Families.
DCSF (2010) Guidance on School Behaviour and Attendance Partnerships,
London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Parsons, C, Annan, G, Cornwall, J, Godfrey, R, Hepburn, S and
Wennerstrom, V (2005) Minority Ethnic Exclusions and the Race
Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, Research Report 616, London,
DfES www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR616.pdf
Parsons, C (2008) Race Relations Legislation, Ethnicity and Disproportionality
in School Exclusions in England, Cambridge Journal of Education,
38.3, pp. 401-420.
Parsons, C (2009) Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from
School, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books.
The Strategic Alternatives to Exclusion from School project
was funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation to whom I am most
grateful. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of
the Foundation.
|
