No more exclusions and sexual violence in schools

[2fallsagain]

Have you seen the group No More exclusions are recommending that those who commit sexual violence should not be excluded? Rather they think the school should take a "community approach".

Whilst exclusions are not desirable you cannot include one child at the risk of others.

There is a big row going on with the NEU as they state it's not official policy. However many local NEU groups are tweeting in solidarity. It is alarming that so many are overriding safeguarding.

Here is SSA comment

twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1321193026228752387?s=20

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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
Correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

@drspouse

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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

@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.

@Falleninwiththewrongcrowd

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.

How often does this happen? Because among the many people I know whose children have been excluded, nobody has had it overturned. In fact the Governors Association says it's inconsistent for them to do this.

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.