Posted by 
The latest figures released by Department for Education show a stark rise in rates of school suspension, where a child is not allowed to attend the school for a set time, typically on disciplinary grounds. Suspensions are up 31% in spring 2022-23 from the same period the previous year.
Meanwhile, schools face parallel issues, including high rates of absence and permanent exclusion (when a child is no longer permitted to attend their school) numbers that have gone back up to pre-pandemic levels. Worryingly, this is an arena in which educational inequalities are evident.
For instance, young people eligible for free school meals and with special educational needs are more likely to be excluded and suspended from school. Evidence shows that spending time outside of school can have significant negative short-term and longer-term impacts on attainment, jobs and mental health, so it is vital to understand why there are so many children out of mainstream school and what can be done about it.
The ongoing consequences of the pandemic and associated lockdowns may be party responsible for this rise. We can see the legacy of lockdown school closures through evidence on diminished readiness for school, increases in mental health difficulties and delayed diagnoses of and support for special educational needs and disabilities.
Other causes may have to do with broader issues in the school sector, including funding shortages, staff recruitment and retention challenges and the accountability pressures facing schools. However, not all schools use suspension and exclusion to the same extent.
Keeping children in school
Our research analysed the approaches used by schools that do well both in terms of attainment and keeping children in school.
We used data from the 2018-19 School Quality Index, published by education research organisation FFT Education Datalab. Schools that score highly on this index are those that accept higher rates of disadvantaged children and those with additional needs, that have relatively low rates of exclusion and absence, and in which disadvantaged children make good academic progress. We selected six high-ranking schools to study.
The schools did not all follow the same practices. While some of our sampled schools did not exclude any pupils, others retained exclusion as an infrequently used but sometimes necessary disciplinary practice.
Nonetheless, we were able to identify consistent themes across the schools that emphasised fostering a sense of belonging. Previous research has emphasised the importance of inclusion for child wellbeing.
Ways schools create belonging
First, we found that human relationships held great importance in creating a sense of belonging for students in all six case study schools. Students were seen, known, cared for, understood and supported in ways which best met their needs – leading to an inclusive environment for everyone at the school.
We found this “inclusion for all” approach in policies that encompassed the whole school. Countering discrimination, for instance, was included in the curriculum as a planned, coherent and ongoing programme of activities that benefited both staff and students. We also found a focus on relationships in smaller, day-to-day practices. These included staff purposefully greeting students, as well as taking care to emphasise that every lesson is a fresh start for every child, without alluding to past behaviour or incidents.
Students as individuals
We also found that the schools prioritised equity rather than equality. For example, rather than treating every student in the same way through the application of standardised behaviour policies, schools acknowledged that some students needed different opportunities and treatment.
The schools often worked with the wider student body to help them understand why such differential treatment was not “unfair”. This meant, for instance, explaining why students with autism may require access to a specific space inside the school building at lunch, even when the rule is that all students must be outside.
Taking individual needs into account is somewhat different to the zero tolerance behaviour policies some schools favour, or the Department for Education’s prioritising of consistency when schools are enforcing behaviour policies.
Finally, all six schools worked closely with local authorities, other schools and community organisations. At a time when schools nationally report that local services, such as child and adolescent mental health services, are overwhelmed, these schools were generally able to build on their strong existing relationships with external services to ensure that students were supported.
The schools adopted a reciprocal approach to the local community. Some schools ran out of hours youth clubs. One had a community café and garden run by young people, and another provided food bank services.
Making a difference
The latest data on school suspensions, exclusions and absence makes it timely to consider how these issues can be tackled at the school level. The government’s plans for improving schools for students with disabilities and special educational needs places an emphasis on preventing exclusion from schools.
Our findings suggest that long-term work to cultivate an “inclusion for all” approach may help keep children in school. This work is complex and time-consuming. Equitable approaches to behaviour management only work if you have trusting relationships between teachers and leaders, a culture of professional development and learning and an open dialogue between staff and students. This cannot be cultivated overnight.
However, building these relationships should be taken seriously in any attempt to reverse the current worrying trends in suspension, permanent exclusion and persistent absence.
Jodie Pennacchia receives funding from Teach First.
Toby Greany received funding from Teach First for this research.
