Permanent exclusions have risen to record levels, but there is fierce debate about what this signifies.

While some say schools have become too quick to exclude, others point to worsening classroom behaviour and argue that, if anything, heads face too much “pushback” on removing students.

So how difficult is it to exclude a student in practice, and how much opposition do schools face when they feel this is necessary?

Permanent exclusions are rising

Over the past decade, permanent exclusions have more than doubled. In 2023-24, the most recent year for which data is available, there were nearly 11,000 permanent exclusions in English schools, compared with 7,894 in 2018-19, before the Covid pandemic, and 4,949 in 2013-14.

The most common reason cited for these decisions is “persistent disruptive behaviour”.

This may reflect growing concern among teachers about poor behaviour, although the evidence on whether behaviour is getting worse is somewhat mixed.

And some experts warn that the “persistent disruptive behaviour” tag is being applied inconsistently and with too low a threshold.

Either way, if exclusions are surging, is it fair to conclude that schools aren’t facing undue levels of challenge over their decisions?

More parents challenging decisions

Laura Trott, the Conservatives’ shadow education secretary, would disagree. She recently told Tes that heads are facing “too much pushback” when it comes to excluding pupils, and, speaking at the Conservative Party conference in October, she said it was necessary to be “honest about the need for permanent exclusions”.

And Manny Botwe, headteacher of Tytherington School, in Cheshire, and a former president of the Association of School and College Leaders, says that schools are increasingly being pressed to justify decisions.

“Heads do not like to recommend to their governing bodies that a young person is to be permanently excluded, so this is something that happens relatively rarely,” Botwe says.

“But I would certainly say that, in my time as a head, it does feel like there are more legalistic challenges that are presented around permanent exclusion.”

Independent reviews more than double

Tes analysis of Department for Education statistics shows that greater numbers of parents are demanding independent scrutiny of decisions to permanently exclude their children.

Independent review panels (IRPs), which can be requested by parents after a school’s governing body has decided to uphold an exclusion, have more than doubled in the past 10 years.

The panels normally include current or former heads and governors, and are chaired by a member with no prior paid school experience.

While panels cannot directly reinstate a student, they can uphold the school’s original decision or call for reinstatement to be considered. But even if directed to return a student to school, governing bodies can still decide not to.

In 2023-24, 810 reviews were lodged following permanent exclusions and 765 were determined by an IRP. In contrast, in 2013-14 there were only 395 reviews lodged and 368 heard by a panel.

However, this rise in reviews is roughly in line with the increase in permanent exclusions, suggesting that the level of challenge faced by schools has remained consistent.

And in the large majority of cases, schools’ decisions are upheld.

While the reinstatement rate was as low as 5 per cent in 2013-14, it has mainly stayed between 11 and 13 per cent over the past decade.

Out of the 810 reviews in 2023-24, 91 - or 11 per cent - resulted in pupil reinstatements.

For Marianne Lagrue, policy manager at Coram Children’s Legal Centre, this figure is “not indicative of a fair and robust system”, given that it amounts to just 0.8 per cent of all permanently excluded children.

She says the charity advises families on exclusions “every day” after it “repeatedly sees children failed by a lack of accountability”.

Trusting leaders’ judgement

By and large, it seems that schools are being supported in their decisions, at least via the IRP process.

This aligns with the experience of Hannah Carter, headteacher at Orchards Academy, which sits within Trott’s Sevenoaks constituency in Kent. She says: “I am yet to find a governing body or local authority that has pushed back when the evidence is robust and the threshold is met.”

Excluding a pupil from school is “without question a headteacher’s worst nightmare”, and leaders “carry the gravity of that choice home”, she adds.

Once a head makes the decision, a clear process must be followed. The head must notify the parents, governing board and local authority without delay, providing reasons for the exclusion.

Within 15 school days, the governing board must meet to consider whether the decision was lawful and proportionate.

The governing board then decides whether to uphold the exclusion or to reinstate the student. If the decision is upheld, parents have 15 school days to request an IRP.

Carter says: “I’ve taken this process to the furthest reaches of the system - all the way to an IRP following a permanent exclusion. Even at that level of intense scrutiny, the decision was upheld.

“It reinforces the fact that when a school’s processes are transparent and the ‘graduated response’ is exhaustive, the system ultimately trusts the professional judgement of the leader on the ground.”

Overall, in the past decade of available data, there have been 5,838 reviews lodged, 5,420 determined by an IRP and 585 cases of pupils being reinstated to schools, meaning that just one in 10 of the reviews lodged has resulted in a student returning to school.

This does not mean that IRPs are an easy ride for schools, however.

‘Overly combative’

While Botwe welcomes scrutiny and believes in parents’ right to call for IRPs, he says the process can feel “overly combative”.

“It has felt at times as though there was an element of nitpicking about certain elements of provision, which felt as though they weren’t really addressing some of the really fundamental reasons as to why we permanently excluded the young person,” he says.

Sometimes this can be used to “justify really, really poor behaviour”, he adds.

Carter describes one “particularly difficult” governors’ board meeting over an exclusion, involving “perhaps the most poignant moment” of her career.

“I was being questioned closely by the board about the specific layers of support we had provided, when the student himself interrupted,” she says.

“He looked at the governors and told them quite bluntly to stop questioning me. He admitted that I had done everything I possibly could for him and that his own actions had left me with no choice.”

Carter describes the moment as “heartbreakingly honest” and says it encapsulates the reality of exclusions. “We can provide the safety net, but we cannot always catch those who aren’t ready to land.”

IRP approaches ‘vary’

Tomas Thurogood-Hyde, director of corporate services at Astrea Academy Trust, comprising seven secondaries, 17 primaries, one special school and one all-through school, says Tes’ analysis shows that the “vast majority” of decisions to exclude are agreed as a “last resort” following “a great deal” of evidence-gathering.

“Governors carry out their reviewing responsibilities with care and skill,” he says.

But he warns that approaches to scrutiny “vary” between panels, “particularly in relation to SEND”.

Rising SEND cases

When IRPs are arranged, parents have the right to request a special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) expert, such as an educational psychologist, to be present for the hearing.

Since 2013-14, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of cases being heard with an expert.

More than half of the 10,885 children excluded in 2023-24 had an already-identified special educational need, highlights Lagrue from Coram. She says that the children being excluded from schools at “intensifying rates” are “overwhelmingly” those with “complex lives and additional needs”.

In 2013-14, just over half of the cases heard included requests for SEND experts (55.7 per cent), compared with 67.6 per cent in 2023-24.

One headteacher, who sits on IRPs as a third party and wishes to speak anonymously, says: “There are a huge amount of SEND issues coming through IRPs, with parents angry with the school because they haven’t secured an education, health and care plan [EHCP].

“And I’ve seen many of those where the child’s needs were absolutely being met by the school as far as they could, and an EHCP wouldn’t have made any difference because they were already giving every resource.”

‘Huge burden for schools’

The official data on IRPs only goes up to the end of 2024, but the anonymous headteacher says they are now seeing a “huge rise” in cases.

“I get asked to do them far, far more than I’ve ever been asked. I’ve been doing them for about 10 years, and it is a huge burden on schools.”

The head decided to train to sit on external panels after experiencing an IRP at their own school that was “absolutely excoriating - a terrible, terrible experience”.

They feel it is too easy to access an IRP because “there is literally no threshold at all”, and that governors’ reviews of school processes are too often “flawed”.

But Sam Henson, deputy chief executive at the National Governance Association, argues that governing board reviews provide a “vital and necessary” opportunity to review a “life-changing decision”.

So, do schools face too many hurdles when it comes to excluding students? Or is the bar already too low?

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, says students are only excluded “as a last resort”, when “all other options have been exhausted” or following an “extremely serious “incident.

Both he and his counterpart at the NAHT school leaders’ union, Paul Whiteman, call for more investment in early intervention as well as wider services, including SEND support.

“The poor behaviour that leads to suspension and exclusion often has causes outside the classroom,” says Whiteman. “Schools do their best to help pupils navigate all of these challenges, but they are not able to solve everything alone.”

As the relationship between parents and schools becomes more complex, amplified by the SEND crisis, the combative nature of exclusions and IRPs creates another level of friction and demands resources and time that many schools are lacking.

Many will be looking to the government to address the root causes of behavioural issues in schools and hoping that earlier intervention and support, particularly in relation to SEND, is addressed in its upcoming White Paper.

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android