Last week, I was on Good Morning Britain discussing the government’s plans to strengthen guidance on suspensions and set clearer expectations around internal suspensions.
As headteacher of E-ACT Heartlands Academy and a Department for Education attendance and behaviour hub lead, I know how quickly a policy headline becomes a playground rumour, then a parent WhatsApp storm.
The guidance, therefore, should be clear and not create ambiguity between schools and parents or confuse young people on what is and is not acceptable behaviour in schools.
Confusing the situation
Sadly, this is what happened following the new guidance, with confusing wording suggesting headteachers were losing autonomy over their decision making.
That was not true, of course - heads have lost no power from this guidance.
In fact, the guidance should be welcomed by school leaders for offering clarity on an important area of behaviour management - internal suspensions - that, for too long, has been allowed to evolve unchecked.
Most schools already use some form of internal suspension or removal from class. The problem has been that practice varies wildly. The best versions are short, supervised, structured and purposeful.
The worst drift into something else entirely: a child parked in isolation with no proper learning, no reintegration plan and no endpoint.
That is not a sanction - it is a slow-motion exclusion. If we are serious about the direction of travel on special educational needs and disabilities and inclusion, it is also a direct contradiction.
Welcome guidance at the right time
The department’s description of internal suspension is sensible: time-limited removal from the usual classroom in a separate supervised space where learning continues, and the pupil is supported to reflect and reintegrate.
It is explicitly not meant to be long-term isolation or seclusion. That is precisely the clarity school leaders should welcome, because it reinforces that behaviour is everybody’s business, but support must be part of the response.
When a child is sent home, the idea that they are “out of school” is often legal fiction. They may be unsupervised, online and more immersed in the dynamics that fuelled the incident in the first place.
You do not have to agree with every line of the ministerial argument to recognise the underlying reality: for many children, being sent home is not automatically a deterrent. It can be a reward, a risk or a retreat.
As such, internal suspensions clearly have a role to play and can be far better at curbing bad behaviour than assuming a default suspension out of school is the right option.
Avoiding a two-tier system
This is why guidance is so important to ensure clarity, consistency, quality and fairness in its use across the school system: an attempt to avoid a two-tier system where some children get structured, time-bound consequences with support, while others are effectively warehoused.
A signal that sanctions should not sever education, and that the aim is reintegration, not limbo.
Of course, though, resourcing matters.
If the system wants internal suspensions done well, it must be honest about what “done well” entails: staffing, space, meaningful work, reintegration conversations and, often, assessment of underlying need.
Guidance without capacity becomes another unfunded expectation. No school leader needs more of those.
As such, where schools require additional support to meet these expectations, the necessary resourcing and funding should be available. Ambition must be matched by capacity.
But policy alone will not reduce suspensions. Culture will.
In schools where expectations are explicit, routines are embedded, relationships are strong and follow-up is embedded in practice, serious incidents are reduced. Suspension becomes proportionate rather than routine.
Why great behaviour work matters
Through our work as an attendance and behaviour hub, we see this first-hand.
Schools are doing exceptional work: consistent systems, intelligent use of data, early intervention for vulnerable pupils and a refusal to compromise on standards.
When that practice is shared, modelled and supported, other schools benefit. The conversation shifts from reaction to prevention.
If we genuinely want to reduce suspensions, we must start earlier - with culture, clarity and consistency. Clear guidance on internal suspension sets a framework. Strong leadership builds an environment where it is rarely needed.
The two are not in conflict. In fact, they depend on one another.
The department should learn from the comms mess: clarity up front, consultation early, no burying the lead. The sector should learn, too: fewer instant reactions to headlines, more attention to detail.
Because if we get this right, internal suspension guidance can do something rare in education policy - raise standards of behaviour while strengthening the inclusion we say we all believe in.
Sophia Haughton is headteacher of Heartlands Academy
For essential weekly intelligence on the international schools sector, sign up for the Tes International newsletter
