No more exclusions and sexual violence in schools

The truth is there is always exclusion in the case of sexual assault. It is just that if the perpetrator is not the one excluded, then the victim will be - either because they choose to leave, or if they stay, they do so in a diminished fearful state that in no way equates to ‘inclusion’ for them.

PearPickingPorky
The disturbing thing is how many people are quick to be apologists for the perpetrators of violent and sexual assault.
I agree with you that it is grooming girls to know they don't matter and it's always a case of 'poor men or boys just can't help themselves'.

It's an insidious attitude that some teens have already picked up by 12/13. The amount of times I've had to explain consent in PSHE lessons because some boys think that sexual harassment is 'banter' and can't understand how coercion can still be present without physical force is worrying. They have to be getting those messages somewhere.

I find it hard to believe that any parent of an assaulted child would genuinely be happy being told 'we could exclude but exclusions are mean and what about the poor perpetrator, how about your child and the perpetrator sit down and your child can listen to the perpetrator's feelings'

Schools need more support to be able to better manage children with additional needs.

There need to be more alternatives made available with specialist input.

There are probably many children who have been excluded when they could have been dealt with another way if there was more support available to schools.

The topic of this thread, however, is whether it's appropriate to ban exclusions altogether, including when a boy has raped another pupil.

Someone who rapes or sexually assaults another pupil cannot continue to go to the same school as their victim. That is an inhumane and cruel punishment for the victim of one of the most serious crimes there is. Of course the only option is permanent exclusion. I am quite alarmed to see people suggesting that the rapist shod be allowed to stay. Talk about grooming girls to grow up knowing they don't matter.

One of the biggest issues I find when it comes to discussing exclusions isn't finding people who want to explore complex issues as they are reasonably easy to find, it's the loud minority of people who have an ideological position/have no intention of seeing past their own experience.

Yup!

Titiana your life sounds blissful!

TitianaTitsling
It doesn't sound wanky at all. It sounds very self aware.

One of the biggest issues I find when it comes to discussing exclusions isn't finding people who want to explore complex issues as they are reasonably easy to find, it's the loud minority of people who have an ideological position/have no intention of seeing past their own experience.

God sorry that makes me sound so wanky!!

Thanks lola Im in a very sheltered rural area of Scotland, my primary school (where dc will go) had less than 40 in it so I have no experience and will readily admit little knowledge of things like this.

I can’t say what MS schools would do as I’ve only recently started work in a MS primary, but years and years ago when I started in MS secondary if a pupil wouldn’t be supervised at home they would have an exclusion within the school. When I saw this done it was because parents were working and couldn’t take time off. This is not always the case in a PRU.

i can assure you that my 8 year old is far more innocent than the politicians that have left a SEND system in crisis

TitianaTitsling
I think they're trying to argue that students who've been excluded may engage in illegal activities whilst excluded, but rather than consider the whole range of complex factors that affect students in that situation, they are choosing to try and argue that exclusion causes many of the issues.

So a student who has been excluded may be at a higher risk of being recruited into county lines, but it's not the exclusion that causes that. A poorly managed exclusion won't help if appropriate provision isn't put in place, but it's not like exclusions take innocent, well behaved students and ruin their life chances for no reason, however much some want to pretend that's the case.

No child ever goes out on their own illegally when excluded.
I really don't understand this but, why would this have anything to do with the school? Why is illegal to go out if excluded?

Yet again, you're taking your experience and deciding the whole topic of exclusions should be viewed through that lens, instead of considering that maybe, just maybe, there's a bit more to it.

You seem to want alternative provision and not want it.
Are against exclusions but then also say that schools shouldn't have to accept a child in school where their behaviour hits a certain point.
Claim everyone washes their hands and get annoyed at schools but the LA has a duty for educating the child, no school has a duty to keep a student regardless of behaviour.
You've confused correlation and causation throughout your posts on this topic
You seem to be suggesting that it's the norm to be permanently excluded in reception for no reason, but then despite these exclusions being for no reason and appeals being available parents just unquestioningly accept it?

You're muddying the waters repeatedly by going on about illegal exclusions, EHCP etc to try and support your point that exclusions are simply wrong.

You'll struggle to find teachers who think the current system is perfect and you'll find many that are in favour of more reform, but trying to argue against exclusions as an option based on you having a bad experience is hugely short sighted.

No school ever thought "it will be easier to be rid of him"
Ime it isn't easier to get rid of a student. It's harder and counts against the school from an ofsted perspective.

All schools always find another place for a child they know has problems before doing a managed move.
I don't really know what you're talking about here. Pre managed move the school can't move a child, parents can.

All schools are perfectly consistent in what behaviour they exclude for.
I have never said they are. Schools should be consistent to their own policies however.

No child ever goes out on their own illegally when excluded.
This is a parental issue and not a problem with PEXing.

No child ever tries to get excluded.
I have no doubt some do. Still not a reason to ban all exclusions.

Exclusion is a perfect deterrent to the child and to others.
No one said it was perfect, however there comes a point where the behaviour of one child needs to stop impacting on the rest of the class. What is your alternative perfect solution? (There isn't one).

You know what, don't bother.
No school ever thought "it will be easier to be rid of him"
All schools always find another place for a child they know has problems before doing a managed move.
All schools are perfectly consistent in what behaviour they exclude for.
No child ever goes out on their own illegally when excluded.
No child ever tries to get excluded.
Exclusion is a perfect deterrent to the child and to others.

I still don't believe (or know of any) schools that wash their hands of students via PEX.
What do you call it when a school doesn't want to apply for/implement/change an EHCP and doesn't try and find an alternative place when they have made a child so scared they've lashed out and then excludes following which they do nothing further for a child, then?
The system makes it much easier to PEx than actually fix the problem or find somewhere else. The school need do nothing further for a child once they are excluded. You are either lying or massively naive.
Read the SEN boards on here and parent groups on FB and then get back to me.

I still don't believe (or know of any) schools that wash their hands of students via PEX. Whatever happened with your child must have been a sufficiently bad one off incident or an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Either way your child was PEXd. What alternative do you propose?

The part where you keep both the victim and other girls and women safe isn't best achieved by a wash-your-hands exclusion (and don't give me any guff about schools not washing their hands as that's precisely our experience.)
And that's what this come down to: your refusal to consider that the topic of exclusions and how best to respond to challenging behaviour is perhaps rather more complex than your experience.

You've decided you don't like exclusions, so exclusions are wrong regardless and there's some magical solution where students are simultaneously kept away from their victims and students who their behaviour poses a risk to, but also doesn't involve schools deciding to take the stance that a student's behaviour has no place in their school.

[quote TheLetterZ]**@drspouse* No, the alternative is a consequence that the child doesn't actually actively want!*

What is this magic alternative? Something that the child doesn't want to do and keeps the victims safe! All without them missing a day of school.

If a student has committed a sexual assault (which is the issue we are talking about) the school must have measures in place to stop that person attending. Anything else is further abuse to the victim.[/quote]
I'm talking about exclusions in general here. We have established that knowing they can miss school may lead to all kinds of poor behaviour to get that time off.
With a child that has committed an offence, it seems rather beyond the school's sanctions as far as a consequence goes. The part where you keep both the victim and other girls and women safe isn't best achieved by a wash-your-hands exclusion (and don't give me any guff about schools not washing their hands as that's precisely our experience.)

@drspouse No, the alternative is a consequence that the child doesn't actually actively want!

What is this magic alternative? Something that the child doesn't want to do and keeps the victims safe! All without them missing a day of school.

If a student has committed a sexual assault (which is the issue we are talking about) the school must have measures in place to stop that person attending. Anything else is further abuse to the victim.

i dont agree with victims of sexual abuse having to be with their attackers or removing PRU and specialist support. I do think politicians should be accountable.
But i do think the education system needs to engage with the idea that FTE can increase the incidence and severity of the behaviour they want to stop in children with SEN. That once schools start illegal exclusions and FTE they go down a road that is very difficult to end as children learn their behaviour is incredibly rewarding. FTE can have a profound effect on creating maladaptive behaviours to get the desired result of going home where they feel safe. FTE very often happen because the child doesnt have the right support in school due to finances and are sold as part of providing evidence for getting an ehcp. The lack of support triggers a fight, flight, freeze, flop response - they get sent home, so next time they are struggling to cope without support they recreate the cicrcumstance that sent them home. Until the point they are permanenly excluded for persistent disruptive behaviour. How much better would it be if suppport could be put in without having to train the children to kick off. Its terrible to get to the point of complete failure to show evidence for sn ehcp.
SEN support without an ehcp needs some kind of ring fenced funding to stop this very well trodden path happening.

Agree with lola and delirium although knowing politics, they'll probably then say 'there's no more exclusions or pupils in specialist placements, CUT THE BUDGETS!'

I completely agree Lola.

Agree, LolaSmiles without a holistic approach and more support for families then simply shouting for a ban on exclusions and an end to specialist provision will do nothing.

TitianaTitsling
It's a worrying trend that lets politicians off the hook.

Disadvantaged pupils are disproportionately more likely to end up excluded and they also tend to achieve lower education outcomes than their peers, regardless of whether they are in an outstanding or average school (just the actual grade tends to be higher in an high performing school).
I can't recall the exact number but literacy levels of many prisoner inmates are worryingly low.
CAMHS have such a high threshold at times that it's really difficult to get mental health support before crisis point.
Cuts to funding mean that getting additional funds for SEN, EHCP, high needs funding and so on is increasingly difficult.

Then consider the impact of social issues on some children such as neglect, abuse, insecure or substandard housing, poverty, going without food, having to care for parents with complex issues etc.

I could go on, but in my opinion the energy needs to go towards holistically supporting children and families in need, whilst still retaining AP and PRU settings for those who need it. Blaming schools and saying we should ban exclusions is the wrong way round.

[quote Justajot]@drspouse - I don't think you necessarily support the position that No More Exclusions is taking. Have you ready their FAQs?

They genuinely seem to think that the victim of sexual assault should explain to the perpetrator how they feel, having been assaulted and that the perpetrator should be able to explain what made them attack.[/quote]
That's frightening and sadly seems to be true from what I've read--although these groups seem to have the viewpoint that it's then the teacher's/schools fault for not engaging them enough!