No more exclusions and sexual violence in schools

You can only be PEXd once so how are they being PEXd daily?

In reception there must be serious issues behaviourally to be FTE constantly. Often this can be used as evidence when applying for an EHCP.

It is complete BS that students get PEXed after one incident.

I didn't say that. Though I do know of children in Reception who've been excluded on almost every day they have been in school.

NME say:
Evidence shows that there is a strong link between exclusions, mental health, youth offending and poor life chances.
Of course it's obvious that pupils whose behaviour is so challenging that they get excluded are also more likely to suffer poor mental health, poor life chances and more likely to go on to display offensive or criminal behaviour. It doesn't mean that the exclusion itself is responsible.

They also say:
We aim to affect long-term structural change and expose the root causes:

NME’s efforts are focused on addressing institutional racism, unconscious bias, negative stereotyping and low teachers’ expectations as well as the wider structures and practices that create the context within which school exclusions exist.

If institutional racism is the root cause of disparities in exclusion rates, it is an institutional racism that privileges Black Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Chinese, all of whom are excluded at lower rates than White British students. But I don't hear anyone talking about African or Asian privilege.
www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/absence-and-exclusions/pupil-exclusions/latest

Following exclusion, the chances of going to prison are vastly higher. That seems pretty damning to me
Correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

Following exclusion, the chances of going to prison are vastly higher.

Huge correlation causation issue there. I would argue it is not the exclusion that makes the chance of going to prison higher. Rather the behaviour that has led to the exclusion.

It is complete BS that students get PEXed after one incident. Unless seriously violent or sexual, this doesn't happen. Even sexual assaults often don't lead to PEX.

A minority of schools may be too hasty to PEX. In my experience, the time taken to PEX a student is long enough to have a big impact on the other children who have to endure threats, violence and disruption to their education.

Governors boards have to sign off on PEXs where I am. They look for all the steps that have been taken before and have refused to PEX if not all steps have been taken.

Following exclusion, the chances of going to prison are vastly higher. That seems pretty damning to me.
And my experience, like that of many, many parents of children with challenging behaviour, is that for some schools it's a first choice (PEx after an hour back in school following a fixed term exclusion in KS1 anyone?) and the hugely different PEx rates speak for themselves, between HTs in the same school and between schools.

Managed moves are tried in the majority of cases before PEX. Its one of the things exclusion board look for.
I don't know of ANY scrutiny of schools' decision to exclude that actually means anything. If such a board exists elsewhere in the UK, it isn't statutory in England. Schools have no oversight at all of their PEx decisions (well, except discrimination tribunals, and even then there are almost no consequences for the school).

Hercwasonaroll
My experience is similar. Before a PEx happens usually the following have been put in place:
Reports to tutor / head of year / senior leadership
Behaviour policy followed for appropriate sanctions
Isolation from specific subjects
Tutor group or class moves away from specific students
Mentoring or counselling from members of the pastoral team
Referrals to relevant services
Managed moves, often to a minimum of 2 schools over a 1-2 year process
Blended timetables with off site providers
Trial moves to PRU/AP settings

Once a PEx happens then the LA kicks in and the student is educated through a range of options including PRU, AP, home tuition.

It seems that there is often an assumption that excluding the most violent, disruptive and dangerous young people from mainstream pupils benefits all the remaining students but harms the prospects of the excluded students. Although it is hard to disagree that the rest of the school community benefits from the removal of those who disrupt and damage their education, it is not clear whether the excluded students themselves are harmed or helped by being excluded and educated at a PRU or alternative provision. I would be interested to see any evidence or research addressing this question. It's often asserted by opponents of exclusion, like NME and drspouse, that students who are excluded suffer as a result, but this seems to be an ideological belief.

A 1:1 in school wouldn't be suitable, no one person is qualified to teach all secondary subjects and nor do they have the subject knowledge. Also the child is still in the building. Imagine that as a victim.

Managed moves are tried in the majority of cases before PEX. Its one of the things exclusion board look for.

PEX doesn't have to be a way onto the streets. For some it is a path to getting the right provision. You've obviously had a bad experience but my experience with PEX students is mainstream tries it's damnest, often to the detriment of the other pupils in the class. Only once every possible other option is exhausted, does a PEX happen.

Why should they continue to be victims?
That's the question that I'm yet to hear a decent answer to in this debate.

Most workplaces don't accept repeated verbal abuse to colleagues.
Most workplaces don't tolerate repeated physical assault.
Most workplaces don't tolerate threats and intimidation.
Most workplaces don't tolerate sexual assault.

And yet there's a group within education who think that the victims of all of the above should suck it up. The message it sends, especially to girls, is that their basic right to safety comes second to 'be nice and don't make a fuss because he couldn't help it'.

I'm not sure you've read what I've written @Hercwasonaroll

There should be a way to educate the child who has offended without forcing the victim to see them and without sending the offender out on the streets.
I've suggested several ways which are all cheaper than prison - managed moves, 1:1 (and the family may prefer a move to effective internal exclusion), in many ways a 1:1 situation may be more suitable if the boy is still a risk, because of the risk to other girls and women.
Exclusions are part of the school culture and NME wants to stop that. I don't think they work and everyone here is suggesting as alternatives all the things that "are done" under the current system. You can't change one part of the system without changing it all. So I can't suggest all the possible alternatives because they aren't all currently used.

Consent! That is funny given they have sexually assaulted someone and obviously don’t understand consent. What if they say no, they aren’t moving!

If no action is taken you could easily get students thinking they can do what they like. And they would be correct!

What about the other children drspouse? Why should they continue to be victims?

there is a level of behaviour that means you lose choice. I'm not sure why the consent to attend alternative provision would trump the consent of a victim to continue to share a school with their attacker.
I'm referring to the parents' choice of school - I don't think there's any right of a child to choose school in any case.
Being Pex as my DS was removes that; and his AP is firm that it is pointless excluding children who have already learned that if they feel like going home/out with their mates they just have to kick off.

It isn't going to cost more to educate a child in mainstream with a specialist (or move him to a PRU etc etc) than keep him in prison.

Sadly schools don't get prison funding....

It isn't going to cost more to educate a child in mainstream with a specialist (or move him to a PRU etc etc) than keep him in prison.

I think that there is a level of behaviour that means you lose choice. I'm not sure why the consent to attend alternative provision would trump the consent of a victim to continue to share a school with their attacker.

And you can have specialist teachers in mainstream. If you have pupils at this level of disruption in your mainstream secondary you should have staff with this level of expertise.

And the magical funding fairy is right there with the money for this in your fantasy land

Drspouse I'm going to guess you don't currently work in a mainstream secondary school. I work somewhere that PExs approx 3 students per year. By the time students get to this point they have had many school level interventions, then usually a managed move trial to another secondary and a failed trial at AP. Meanwhile for the 2 years this process is taking place, the rest of the class are tolerating abuse, violence, constant disruption and their learning isn't happening. PEx is sometimes the evidence needed to secure a school place in the appropriate school.
I agree we need other schools and more holistic provision for some students. However banning PEx isn't the way round it at the moment. If anything schools need to be able to access alternatives faster, and lower the impact on the other 29 students in the room.

As for NME, clearly they are a bunch of sexual abuse apologists.

Are people on this thread using "exclusion" to only mean "permanent exclusion" or to also include "temporary exclusion" (what used to be called "suspension")?

Kinda feels like some posters are talking at cross purposes.

It's consent, choice and it's actually a plan. The family can choose if an alternative destination is more suitable. They can phase in the right destination and if it doesn't work they can rethink. And it doesn't mean weeks at home with no school and the chance to roam the streets, or the message that you can play up and get sent home.

What exactly is the difference between excluding with appropriate alternative provision and moving them to that alternative provision? Is it their consent? Is this just semantics?

Mainstream just is not suitable for all children and young people.

So move them. Excluding them tells the other boys they just have to behave like this and they get at least a week off school. Yay!

And the girls harmed (and some boys, though more rarely) deserve a space free of their attacker. That means exclusion is likely to be necessary where an assault is sufficiently serious to merit such exclusion. That doesn't mean the perpetrator should just be dumped in a different setting - far from it. It means their needs should be met - and so should those of their victim(s).

(And you can have specialist teachers in mainstream. If you have pupils at this level of disruption in your mainstream secondary you should have staff with this level of expertise. There's no force field preventing them from working in mainstream schools).