to think schools shouldn't expel children

[Dontexpell]

They will just fall further behind with education which means they will be less likely to get a job or go
To college.

AIBU to think it's a silly punishment.

Do they not lose funding for the able child?
This really worries me, DS school have lost a fair few kids to bullying, yet no questions asked? No data available? You know like X children moved area, Y children bullied, Z children excluded?
Think parents would be more interested in that info than grades!! But then gossip is a wonderful thing.

The funding will move with the child at the end of the year but it is swings and roundabouts for most schools, they lose almost as many as they pick up.
No one monitors why parents move children- they have free choice.

Would uncover a few issues though wouldnt it?

One of my sons was routinely attacked in years 3-5 by another kid. He knocked out 3 of my son's teeth, he gave him 2 black eyes. He was mean and goaded him constantly. I lost count of the amount of times I would go and speak to the headteacher who was either really shit or just didn't have the power to do that much about it.

In the end, we emigrated. Best thing we ever did so I should probably go and thank that kid now the little shit It seems crazy that, looking back, it was easier to get a green card than it was to get a school to do something about a habitually troublesome child.

All the kids I talked about either had statements or were going through the process,

Strangely a fair few of the kids ive come into contact with have had their statements delayed by schools refusing to support the application

I was told by the Lea and the school not to bother even starting statementing process because he wouldn't get it, the school told me they would block it due to funding. My son was disruptive, rude, aggressive, really struggled with socialising and just didn't want to be there.

He also has autism and adhd which wasn't diagnosed until he was 13. The school couldn't cope but refused to try and help me apply to a local school that could cope with his complex needs.

He did calm down and he's 16 now but academically he's still struggling..and the school do not give a shit

Although we were devastated at the time permanent exclusion was a good thing for ds1 as it meant finally his needs could be met.

I continue to think though that there should be a kinder route for child, parent and teachers to getting support for a child having difficulties that the school are struggling to help.

In ds1's case the behavioural problems were down to SN - school referred for help a good eighteen months before he was permanently excluded. They and he were totally let down by outside agencies and by the LA's policy of refusing to put in extra support until things get dire.

We all suffered - his teachers, his classmates, us but ds1 most of all. His behaviour was not a matter of choice but a result of extreme anxiety.

"I continue to think though that there should be a kinder route for child, parent and teachers to getting support for a child having difficulties that the school are struggling to help."

There is a kinder route. It's called managed transition. Or sometimes a child can have part time attendance in Pru as well as mainstream.

The problem is the lea dragging their heels on providing help because it costs money.

Reallytired Yes, lots of local authorities offer something like this. It is often called a 'managed transition or a managed move* .

It does not cost a school anything. It gives a child a new start before the point is reached of permanent exclusion. If it works, that is great. The problems with it are:

1. Parents have to agree to it and many will not because they do not want their child to go to a different school. (They rarely understand how much a school is struggling and how bad their child's behaviour is or the impact it is having on other children and they just refuse a move)
2. If it fails what happens then? The school ends up either taking them back or they go to a PRU or are excluded permanently.

If a MM is to work, it has to happen before the final crisis point is reached. Parents are the key to it working- many will not support it, sadly.

ds1 actually did do a managed move after permanent exclusion. It failed rapidly (I) Because the new HT had been forced against her better judgment to have him at the school by the LA and (b) No additional support was given - infact there was even less than given by the school that permanently excluded. It is a crazy policy because unless you assume that some primaries and teachers are rubbish why should a change of school be a magical solution to the problems. Maybe it works if there is a different reason other than SN for the permanent exclusion but it was just cruel for ds1 to put him into a new school with no support.

Managed moves are supposed to have some support attached but schools don't get any staffing to provide it.

Previous posters have commented on schools and statements. If a child gets a statement that says 10 hours of support should be given- the school gets no funding for that. Our school has just taken in 3 boys who each have ten hours of support attached to their statement. 30 hours. No money given to provide it. We don't have staff sitting round. The government's view is that should come from the school budget. 30 hours is a member if staff £20,000+
Schools just do not have that money.

Apparently it cost £15k here for a school to permanently exclude a child. Therefore internal exclusion is often used. One teacher with a radio and often several teenagers with a range of needs and often unpredictable behaviour - some teenagers spend most of their time in internal exclusion therefore are not being taught merely contained. Whilst this solves the problem for their classmates and teachers, it does nothing to solve the root cause of their behaviour and long term the cost to society is much greater. It is not the school's fault but the short term attitude of government and LA

I don't get all this stuff about the cost of exclusion. Schools only have to pay for excluding if they refuse to overturn the exclusion when the independent review panel finds they have acted unlawfully. Surely there aren't loads of schools doing that?

Lulu, schools get specific delegated funding for pupils with SEN, including pupils with statements and EHC Plans. So it isn't true to say that the cost of SEN support takes away from the normal school budget.

The Independant Review Panel does not find they have acted unlawfully. It simply asks them to consider rhe exclusion again. Why should a school be fined for reviewing it and sticking to its decision?

Yes, but these are additional students who arrive after the budget has been given.

LuluJakey, that is precisely one of the findings the Review Panel has to make. They have three choices: (1) to uphold the exclusion; (2) to recommend that the governors reconsider; and (3) to direct the governors to reconsider. They can only direct reconsideration if they find that an unlawful decision has been made on judicial review grounds.

As for your question why should the school be fined, ask the government and the Department for Education, they made the law.

Delegated funding for SEN works on a time-lag basis, i.e. it is calculated on the basis of the number of students with SEN in the school at a specified time. Therefore if students arrive after the budget is allocated it is true to say that at that point they won't be taken into account in the budget; however, they will be in future years. But the other side of the coin is that if students with SEN who were in school at the time when the budget was set leave (which will obviously happen every year) the school continues to benefit from the funding that was allocated for them till the next budget is set.

Lulu.

The school is meant to meet some of the funding for statemented/ECHP children it's not all down to the Additional funding that brings.

It's never been that way despite many teachers thinking that's the case

I'm copying this in full as it may interest people. Law reports article from Eversheds:

The current schools exclusions regime is intended to streamline the process relating to permanent exclusions and restore authority to head teachers and governing bodies. However, recent figures show that since the introduction of the regime in September 2012, the number of exclusions in schools in England has increased, sparking debate amongst both government and teaching unions.

Under the Education Act 2002, the power to exclude lies exclusively with the head teacher, who may exclude a pupil for a fixed period or permanently. This decision may then be reviewed by the governing body, which must decide whether the pupil should be reinstated or not.

If the governing body upholds a permanent exclusion, parents can request an independent review of the decision. However, the Independent Review Panel (“IRP”) has no power to reinstate a pupil. The IRP may uphold the decision or recommend the governing body reconsider their decision. The IRP can also quash the decision and direct the governing body to reconsider the matter if it considers the decision was flawed and failed to comply with the rules of natural justice or fairness.

If the IRP quashes the exclusion and directs a reconsideration, the governing body are not obliged to reinstate the pupil following reconsideration. However, the IRP have strong persuasive powers and may order that in the event of the pupil not being reinstated, the school must pay the local authority £4,000 in addition to any funds that move with the excluded pupil.

The Statistics

A Department for Education/Office for National Statistics report dated 30 July 2015 provides a summary of the statistics relating to permanent and fixed period exclusions from state-funded primary, state-funded secondary and special schools during the 2013/14 academic year as reported in the School Census. The report indicates that:
•the number of reviews lodged since 2012/13 has increased by 25%, but only 5.7% resulted in an offer of reinstatement (compared with 6.7% in 2012/13);
•The number of exclusions has increased across all school types, with the greatest increase in primary schools;
•on average there are 26 permanent exclusions per day, the most common reason being persistent disruptive behaviour;
•the rate of permanent exclusions has remained the same, apart from a slight increase in secondary schools;
•the overall rate of suspensions has decreased, apart from a slight increase in primary schools;
•the total number of suspensions has increased – on average there are 1,420 per day. Of these, more than 50 are as a result of assaulting a teacher.

Commentary

Schools Minister Nick Gibb has “saluted” the figures as a sign that “the new freedoms and greater clarity over exclusions given to head teachers are having a positive impact on behaviour”. He considers that the new powers provide head teachers with the “confidence” to exclude pupils.

Not all see the figures in such a positive light. Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT union has commented that “the increase in suspensions show that, quite rightly, schools are not accepting violence against staff. However, there needs to be deeper analysis of why levels of violence are increasing.”

An alternative conclusion has been reached by Russell Hobby, General Secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, who considers that poor behaviour is attributable to government cuts to public services.

Whilst disagreement exists regarding the exact cause behind the increase in exclusions, most will agree that there is no ‘quick fix’. As Kevin Courtney, Deputy General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers has commented: “These issues need to be addressed to ensure that all pupils are given the opportunity to fulfil their potential”.

Sadly exclusion sometimes gets children the help they need.

Do any posters 'in the know' - as it were - know if foster care/residential schooling can be triggered by exclusion? Because people have rightly spoken about SEN impacting behaviour, but there are also children where antisocial behaviour is caused by a chaotic homelife (or mental illness caused by a chaotic homelife) where parents either don't care or aren't capable of getting the children back on track. What happens in these cases?

I totally understand that non-disruptive children need to be able to learn, and that disruptive children also deserve an education - it's just very sad all round. Except governments making such devastating cuts to MH services/social services/education that could nip such things in the bud, which just make me angry.

Schools Minister Nick Gibb has “saluted” the figures as a sign that “the new freedoms and greater clarity over exclusions given to head teachers are having a positive impact on behaviour”.

What a total plonker. The reality is that excluding a child is always an admission of failure on the part of the school. How does he think excluding a child will always have a positive impact on behaviour? All that means is that the problem is passed on to another school, and probably magnified directly as a result of the exclusion.