No more exclusions and sexual violence in schools

If you're interested in all students getting the right education provision drspouse then NME isn't pushing for that.

They want to abolish alternative provision, abolish PRUs, abolish 'secure schools' (I think by this they mean secure children's homes with education on site).

They want community leaders to be accountable to young people, not politicians (whereas I'd want politicians who are running education to be held to account).

They have an anti-capitalist agenda too.

Are there parents and teachers open for a discussion about exclusions? Absolutely and I'd count myself in that. I'm particularly concerned about illegal exclusions for those with SEN and also concerned about off rolling.

Are groups like NME really wanting a robust discussion about education? No. They just want education restructured around their ideology.

It's not illegal if they send a simple email the same day to confirm it's a PEx.
Which is what happened.
So the either the school have a big enough situation to justify a PEx or there's enough evidence to show the PEx is justified surely. Otherwise an appeal would be possible, and any parent who sees an exclusion for no reason would surely be challenging it?

The amount of evidence we get asked for before a managed move fails is precisely because it makes it clear what the issues were should there be an appeal.

I can't speak for every school but you seem to be suggesting that schools randomly decide they can't be bothered with a student so permanently exclude a 4/5 year old for no reason and, despite there being no grounds for an exclusion, the parent just accepts this, no appeal, no question.

Oh and also @LolaSmiles a heck of a lot "legal" exclusions are also very very wrong

The difference between you and those of us in favour of keeping PEx as an option is that some of us think there are situations where PEx is absolutely reasonable, whereas you seem to repeatedly conflate a range of issues based on the fact you just don't like exclusions.

The more I read about the NME, Ban the Booths (with their regularly changing definition of booths), Pivotal, and other consultant companies, the more I see a hell of a lot of victim blaming where everyone other than the individual student is held responsible for the student's actions. There's always some excuse that means the student who has bullied, harmed, assuated, verbally abused is prioritised over the right of other students to be safe in school.

Oh and also @LolaSmiles a heck of a lot "legal" exclusions are also very very wrong.

@LolaSmiles it's not illegal if they send a simple email the same day to confirm it's a PEx.
Which is what happened.

Have you ever been rung up to say "come and get your child now and don't ever bring them back"?
If you had, I think you'd know the difference

That situation is an illegal exclusion.

Illegal exclusions are wrong.
Illegal exclusions don't make permanent exclusions wrong.

Justajot
NME seem to overlap a lot with Dix, Pivotal, Ban the Booths and a number of educational consultants who make their money telling mainstream school staff that any challenging behaviour is their fault and they'll solve it if only the school buys into the training/consultancy.

As with any agenda, it's worth looking at whether those pushing it are likely to profit from it.

From the NME FAQs, I think the third one. Sorry it looks like someone on this thread said it.

@Hercwasonaroll - where is that quote from?

I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious to know who is suggesting this.

More often than not, it is because they are not engaged by the content

What a victim blamey statement about teachers. Kids misbehave because they aren't engaged by the content of a lesson. They aren't there to be entertained. They're in school to learn.

That statement is pretty much saying "kids only misbehave because the teacher's lesson isn't good enough".

And saying "if you play up badly enough you get to leave".

But the alternative is you can do what you like and be allowed to return and do it again.

There has to be a balance between lawful inclusion and no exclusions.

schoolsweek.co.uk/nga-replace-governor-exclusion-boards-with-independent-tribunals/

I also know families who've been to independent review, had a recommendation to reinstate, and then the school refused. There's basically no oversight.

Having an exclusion on your child's record makes your choices for further schools even more limited if that's possible.

@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.

Exclusion is just saying "not my problem any more".

It's not JUST saying that. In my experience (as governor and staff) exclusion is saying "we've tried everything".

And saying "if you play up badly enough you get to leave".

So the rest of the class can learn.

And who decides if that's sufficient and approves the exclusion? Because it's not anyone other than the HT, is it?

Governing boards. They have and do overturn PEX decisions.

HTs have to present all the evidence supporting a permanent exclusion to the governing body. GBs can and do overturn HTs' decisions to permanently exclude.

Having been in a situation where this unfortunately did occur, and being sat in the HT office, discussing what needed to happen. My exact words were 'there is a guidance on this - and that is he has broken the law - and we need to act accordingly.

The idea that a pupil could still be allowed on the premises after such a thing, would be beyond neglectful, to the pupils who need to be protected as far as is possible. It is abhorrent to even consider risking the pupil who was harmed coming into contact with them again. Let alone doing it at school.

It won't just have been one letter. There is a whole lot of evidence etc the school need before PEX.
And who decides if that's sufficient and approves the exclusion? Because it's not anyone other than the HT, is it? Who says they've done enough? Would it by any chance be the school? Who tells them they can or can't exclude? Oh yeah, the school.

So why does it matter if a child is PEx and given a place in Alternative Provision or they go to Alternative Provision without PEx?
If you've no issue with managed moves and alternative provision then what need is there to be anti exclusion
Have you ever been rung up to say "come and get your child now and don't ever bring them back"?
If you had, I think you'd know the difference.

@Justajot
I don't think a victim should have to be educated alongside their assailant.
But I think there are other ways to achieve this.
Exclusion is just saying "not my problem any more". And saying "if you play up badly enough you get to leave".

Sorry, that was clumsy typing.

@drspouse, do you actually agree with the position of No More Exclusions, that there are no circumstances where a perpetrator of sexual violence should be permanently excluded from the school still attended by the victim of that violence?

@drspouse

Not excluding children doesn't have to mean keeping them in the same school
So why does it matter if a child is PEx and given a place in Alternative Provision or they go to Alternative Provision without PEx?
If you've no issue with managed moves and alternative provision then what need is there to be anti exclusion?

Schools can, and should in my opinion, have the ability to say that a child's behaviour is such thay that it significantly causes risk or harm to other students.

If a student has physically or sexually assaulted someone then I don't see how anyone should say that a school shouldn't have the right to say 'no the safety of other children matters'. Having permanent exclusions allows schools to do that. Removing that option means that the perpetrator (via their parents) gets to decide whether the victims remain safe.

It won't just have been one letter. There is a whole lot of evidence etc the school need before PEX. There are clear legal requirements for PEX to be allowed. I'm sorry that you have not been well treated by your ds school and clearly you feel you have had a bad experience. The LEA should have found and funded alternative education.

Not excluding children doesn't have to mean keeping them in the same school.

Apart from a successful managed move, currently it does.

Repeated FTE or even PEX isn't an easy way to get rid of a student. PEX in particular is very difficult.
Really, because when my DS was PEx it took one letter. It seemed very very easy for the school, and totally unaccountable. No need to have the exclusion approved by the LEA. No need to arrange or fund his PRU place or try to reintegrate him or find an experienced TA or another school. All problems solved with one letter. Fixed term exclusions handily meant no extra staff for events DS was looking forward to but might find tricky.

What I don't understand from anti exclusion people is this insistence that the best thing is keeping almost everyone almost all of the time.
Not excluding children doesn't have to mean keeping them in the same school.

It's not a case of not wanting 'difficult' children.

It's a case that not all schools have the capacity to deal with some challenging behaviours, nor the specialist staff required to deal with a range of complex issues around the child.

My friend works in an AP setting. Staff there have more specialist training than in my mainstream secondary. They've also got specialist professionals in house and a totally different curriculum to mainstream. Many of the children there have been PEx or were close to it. Mainstream wasn't working for them, and to make mainstream world for them would mean taking away elements of mainstream that work for others, or worse diluting the specialist provision by having a couple of AP style teachers scattered around mainstream schools and hoping for the best.

What I don't understand from anti exclusion people is this insistence that the best thing is keeping almost everyone almost all of the time. It feels like a fuzzy ideological position that makes the adults feel good, regardless of how many children pay the cost.

This is an easy way to get rid of them without bothering to try and change anything,

Repeated FTE or even PEX isn't an easy way to get rid of a student. PEX in particular is very difficult.

I'd be more concerned about FTE that aren't billed to parents as FTE. The phonecalls like "can you just pick up xx for the rest of the day". Every single incident and exclusion needs logging and the correct paperwork completing so that the child gets the EHCP they need.

I think we probably both have a similar aim to want better funded and more available alternatives to fully mainstream school. However I don't think no exclusions is the way to achieve that.

I completely agree. But many schools just don't want children who are difficult or expensive. This is an easy way to get rid of them without bothering to try and change anything, and it's almost impossible to overturn.

Hercwasonaroll
I think they're talking about some schools going straight to a fixed term exclusion as soon as the child comes back from a fixed term exclusion.

Whilst I'm aware of some secondary schools being quick to fixed term exclude certain students with a long history of defiant, threatening or violent behaviour, regular exclusions in reception must surely involve some fairly serious behaviour, in many cases that puts the safety of others at risk. As you say, that's the sort of behaviour that requires an EHCP and additional intervention.