Most local education authorities still seem to be reducing the number of pupils excluded from their schools, despite the Government’s relaxation of its targets. But many are struggling to make headway in the battle to cut truancy.

TES enquiries to a random sample of 14 councils found that inner cities especially had made significant reductions in the number of pupils permanently excluded between 1999-2000 and 2000-1.

Bradford had cut the number from 118 to 102, Leeds from 169 to 148 and Newcastle from 81 to 77. These reductions were achieved after LEAs collectively had already met the Government’s target of cutting exclusions by a third by 2002. Overall, they reduced the number from 12,700 in 1996-97 to 8,300 in 1999-2000.

Further small reductions were achieved last year by the inner London borough of Newham (from 43 to 41) and Barnsley (from 42 to 37). In Birmingham, where the figure fell from 338 to 280 in the two years up to 2000, the council is “confident” the 2001 figure will show a further fall.

The flagship New Labour council of Brighton and Hove jubilantly announced a dramatic drop from 41 to 29, well below its target of 35. The council achieved this by giving more money directly to schools to help them with the problem.

Brighton’s Alternative Centre for Education, which opened a year ago, supports schools with behaviour strategies and monitors pupils on its roll every week to review progress. A full-time exclusions co-ordinator has also been appointed to help schools.

The picture is less rosy in some parts of the South-west. In Devon, the number of pupils permanently excluded shot up by more than 50 per cent from 81 to 136 - well above the target figure of 80.

In Bath and north-east Somerset, the figure has gone up from 26 to 43, again well above the target of 25.

Ministers said they are satisfied the current level of permanent exclusions is sustainable and they do not intend to set fresh targets.

“The priority now,” said the recent Government report Opportunity for All, “is to ensure that excluded pupils secure a full-time education, and that schools can manage disruptive children outside the classroom.”

But a target that is still far from being met is the Government’s aim to cut truancy by a third by 2002 - and by a further 10 per cent by 2004. Recent government figures showed the level of unauthorised absence had stayed stubbornly at 0.7 per cent of half days missed every year from 1994 to 2000.

There is little sign in the TES survey that the figures for 2000-1 will show enough improvement to meet targets. The rate for high schools in Leeds, for instance, improved from 2.01 per cent to 1.85 per cent between 1999-2000 and 2000-01, but was still well above the authority’s target of 1.38 per cent.

And secondary schools in Bath and north-east Somerset saw a slight rise in the rate to 0.7 per cent in the last academic year.

The target is 0.3 per cent this year. In Derbyshire, however, both primary and secondary schools managed to meet their targeted reductions in truancy.

Many authorities were stepping up the number of prosecutions for truancy. Leeds made 123 in the last academic year, Hull 272 and London’s Newham 300.

As Brighton and Hove discovered, action to combat truancy may not always reduce it initially. Just as rising crime figures may indicate more rigorous reporting rather than more burglaries, so the council found that encouraging schools to ask more challenging questions about the true reasons for absence made their truancy rate go up.

“But we are confident it will go down again once we have established the true position,” said a council spokeswoman.