Threshold for permanent exclusion.

[whatthehell33]

Hi! Related to another thread I have on a school based issue. We're trying to work out the best thing to do and just wondered if any teachers could help by telling us what sort of behaviour sees children permanently excluded? I understand it's rare and the threshold's very high these days. What makes a school say enough is enough? Thanks!

BertrandRussell At a recent HT meeting, our LA said that it wouldn't support Heads who excluded pupils against their guidelines as "they should have had appropriate measures in place to make sure the incident didn't occur! ..... and they wonder why we are one of the areas that can't attract teachers, particularly Primary Heads

just off the top of my head,

drugs is the obvious one, straight out the door, feet don't touch the ground ( that includes cannabis - ridiculous that I feel I have to say that, but even more ridiculous that there are people on MN that don't seem to consider it a "proper" drug - it is, and it destroys the educational outcomes and life chances of ore UK teens than all other drugs put together)

10 days temporary exclusions, it doesn't matter what they are for, the next one is permanent.

violence, racism, general lack of cooperation, those are the main ones.

lack of attendance

once you are past year 11 you also need a minimum level of achievement to be allowed to stay

Wow user, are you in a state or independent school?

You can't exclude for lack of attendance?

Nope on attendance.
Unless there is a reason (eg. Ive taught chilsren with long standing major illnesses), schokls takr parents/carers to court and then it quickly within that process becomes a social services issue. If a child isn't accessing school there's usually more serious issues and if we exclude a child who isn't attending they are at more risk of harm because there's no regular professionals involved in the child's life.

I wouldn't want to see exclusion for attendance.

ASauvingnonADay
You can't exclude for lack of attendance?

I have only seen this done in private schools.

My D'S went to private schols. DD from Y9. I don't know if there were exclusions per se but conversations woukd have taken place if DC weren't attending and not achieving. If they were achieving much more support and flexibility.

Assault, theft, intimidation, telling a teacher to fuck off woukd have resulted in a non negotiable invitation to go elsewhere.

We moved our dd out of the state sector due to the lack of standards in relation to behaviour and it"s impact on behaviour. I would not have my child educated in an environment where the head said it was difficult to say drugs were completely unacceptable because some parents used recreational standards.

Schools and those who lead them have gone along hand in hand with the decline. Why don't heads speak up and understand the difference between right and wrong.

Lack of standards 're behaviour impacting on achievement. Sorry for typos - on phone.

I'm a governor and sit on my fair share of permanent exclusion panels (secondary and we probably permanently exclude around 5 a year with the same number of managed moves that never make a panel) we also give a couple of governors final warnings a year where we follow the same process but give a formal warning (realise the above makes it sound like targets but it really isn't!).

In recent years it's mainly been bringing drugs or potentially dangerous weapons onto the premises (including cannabis). Serious assault on another pupil (attended hospital but no permanent damage) and assaulting (shoving) a member of staff. One in relation to a serious incident where the police were involved that occurred outside school.

I find it outrageous that shoving a member of staff warrants exclusion but not shoving a child. I get the teacher is in authority but it is still assault.

I never understood why schools were complicit in the dilution of learning for the majority by an out of control minority.

Primary head
Permanent exclusion for persistently poor behaviour - i. e. Refusing to follow adults instructions, distrupting classes by calling out/stropping off/back chatting the teacher etc. If this has happens, the child gets a ton of support from a dedicated pastoral support team and some clear targets to achieve - if no improvement then exclusion.

Physical assault in another pupil - unprovoked then temp exclusion and then reintegration with specialist pastoral support and restricted break/lunch time. Do it again and you get councilling / ed psych support but are isolated or work with peer role models at break / lunch time. Third time and It's PEx.
Physical assault on a teacher - if in the juniors then instant permanent exclusion. If infant, then ed psych assessment, pastoral support - more than a couple of incidences= permanent exclusion. The staff in my school are not punch bags.

Excluding a Child with SEN - some children just can't be in mainstream - it's sad but true. I do not believe that any child should be allowed to assault children and staff. IMO - if your need is so extreme that's if it's not fully met all of the time you kick/bite/punch or in any way assault other people then you should not be in mainstream education. Some people seem to think that a mainstream school should be able to provide a punch bag (often called 1-2-1 support worker) and completely alter the routine and experience of every child in the class to accomodate 1 child's needs and minimse triggers. I don't believe that is the duty of main stream education so that's where I usually have a fight on my hands. However I will not allow 31 children and a teacher to suffer at the hands of 1 however unintentionally it may be in the part of the child. Special children need specialist help so I make sure they move to a setting that best meets their needs.

Not sure if you're saying that a shove of a pupil should be permanent exclusion or a member of staff shouldn't be?

Shoving another pupil generally isn't permanent exclusion as very simply the dynamics of relationships between pupils are so complex that I suspect the teachers would never get to the bottom of the story with enough certainty that a permanent exclusion criteria would be met- very simply teenagers push and shove each other all the time. We all wish they wouldn't but I think it's pretty much part of growing up.

Staff are not pushing and shoving pupils all the time and therefore it is clear that any contact like that is deliberate and not something that they should have to experience in the workplace. Of course a member of staff shoving a pupil would face serious consequences.

I would expect less typical teenage pushing and shoving to be dealt with under the anti-bullying policy and could result in permanent exclusion under I suspect most school's behaviour policy, probably not for a one off incident.

Having read Effic's great post i am reminded that of course shoving another pupil unprovoked would not be without sanction- as a governor I wouldn't not see it as it would be dealt with by the school leadership team.

How can you do that but other head's can't effic.

At dd's dreadful secondary five girls were involved in a theft and then reprisals for the theft which included destroying possessions. The same five also beat up another pupil in the street and then set fire to an aerosol posting pictures threatening anyone who corroborated wifh the same.

Head's response: the L.A. won't let me exclude and they come from backgrounds where there are few boundaries and few good examples. Therefore we must expect different behaviour from these girls and apply different sanctions.

At that point I lost all respect and removed my dd.

Effic you sound fab!! Funny how many school staff are expected to be punch bags though isn't it?

Perhaps one of the good things about being an academy? LA have no say- head and governors need to act lawfully and we can be challenged if we don't but the principal has the authority to act in the best interests of the school.

rose - experience, believe in my values and vision for my school, fabulous backing from rock solid governors who hold the same values and vision for our children, staff and school and sheer bloody mindiness (arrogance?!). The pressure from LAs, parents, various SEN advocacy groups and social services can be immense and you need to stand your ground against some pretty formidable oppodition and acres of red tape but it can be done. iMO it has to be done. I repeat my believe that mainstream school is for the good of the majority - we can not allow the minority to disrupt and destroy. I put my very limited money where my mouth is by directly employing specialist children mental health workers (gave up on CAMHs year ago), ed psych, behaviour specialist pastoral workers and parent support advisor so that I can be sure that all children in my schools get the chance and the support to succeed but if they can't, they can't and they do not get to ruin everyone else's chances. And they absolutely don't not get to assault my fabulous, hard working, amazing staff.

Sorry .... quietly removing myself from my soap box now !!

Effic you sound fab. The main thing that my experience has taught me is just how crucial it is to have a bloody good head- pretty much everything that goes on in a school comes from that. It would now be the main thing I would look for in choosing a school for my children. I don't think I realised just how important it was before that.

It's a team job and needs some truly altruistic, brave, comitted governors to back the vision and values of the school, hold their head teacher to account as the embodiment of these and then back them if they fulfill their part of this deal!
Well done for putting your hand up for what can be a thankless but vital role

I taught in primary and honestly never had a child permanently excluded. A few temporary but never permanent. The LEA I worked in for the majority tries to keep exclusions to an absolute minimum through interventions, managed moves and behaviour outreach teams.

However, there are reasons why LEAs behave this way. For the most part exclusions don't actually solve anything. Why would they? At most they can be a wake up call to parents but in reality they only highlight an already broken situation and they are expensive. For schools it's mostly about moving the child somewhere (anywhere) else.

Excluded children will, more likely than not, have SEN and that's before any undiagnosed children are factored in. We do not support children with SEN properly in this country, especially if their SEN includes behavioural challenges. It's very glib to say they need to be in a specialist setting but in reality we do not have enough of these facilities or placements. So many children end up in limbo or parents opt to home educate because they feel they have no other option.

The situation is only going to get worse with the rise of free schools/academies, inability of LEAs to set up their own facilities and increasing pressure on budgets and schools to perform.

soapbox queen
I can't do anything about the national policy on inclusion, or the national lack of SEN expertise, lack of funding or the lack of special school places. So what I can do is the best for the children in my schools. If that means ensuring that children who can't be included in my setting get to the front of the queue for the special school places in my area then so be it. That's my responsibility- I don't not waste energy fighting against what I can not effect but work to change what I can.

And I genuinely applaud you if you managed to run a mainstream school in high areas of deprivation and never exclude. Well done. I unfortunately have never been able to manage to sufficiently amolerate the behaviour of a few so that they don't have a significantly determental effect on others. So I do what I can for the majority. Hats off to those who do better.

Effic My post was not directed at you. It was in response to the OP and others wanting to understand the state of play. No, I've not lead a school. I've just been at the chalk face dealing with children who've been 'moved' and 'managed' from other mainstream schools. The vast majority of the time these 'uncontrollable' children have taken effort, patience and understanding but have settled in well.

Everyone has to use what they have available to them I agree. However what we have available to us fails a massive number of children.

Effic I want may children to come to your school!!

Interesting point soapbox queen, when you say you're at the chalk face were you in some sort of ebd school or pec? Or just a really inclusive mainstream? The school my kids attend has a reputation for being very very inclusive, a lot of children on the spectrum end up there. However, there does surely need to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere? You say who does exclusion help, well perhaps it sends a message to the children and staff in the school that they do not have to accept being bullied, hurt, threatened and verbally abused. That their rights matter too?
Because I understand that the people acting out are hurting and need help, I really do and I want to see them get that help. Just not at the expense of my children who now think that calling a teacher a fat cunt is normal and not at the expense of school staff who count their bruises on a Friday night and cry from stress on a Monday morning!!
A lot of soap boxes on here now.