Alternative provision leaders are calling on the government to define “persistent disruptive behaviour” amid fears that too many pupils are being excluded under this “catch-all” category.

The term is being used for an increasing proportion of school exclusions and suspensions, which are at record levels.

This “ropey code” now accounts for nearly four in 10 permanent exclusions but is being applied inconsistently - and sometimes too often - by schools, according to leaders of pupil referral units (PRUs) and alternative provision (AP) settings.

Robert Gasson, CEO of Wave Multi Academy Trust, which runs 11 academies in the South West, including AP settings, said: “It is a concern. We are picking up some pupils who have been excluded, who I would describe as being ‘a bit cheeky’.

“We had one pupil permanently excluded for persistent disruptive behaviour on just the third day of the academic year.”

Exclusions for disruptive behaviour

Government guidance for schools on exclusions does not include any definition or examples of what should be considered as persistent disruptive behaviour.

This means the threshold for excluding students for this reason “is very different in one school compared to the others”, said one headteacher of a PRU, who asked to remain anonymous.

One school had permanently excluded almost 20 students for persistent disruptive behaviour who “would not have been permanently excluded from some of our other partner schools”, they said.

The leader added that, in many cases, excluded pupils would have benefited from intervention work by the PRU, which could have ensured they stayed on the roll at their main school. This could involve students attending the PRU temporarily on a dual registration with their school.

Persistent disruptive behaviour is the most common reason for permanent exclusion, accounting for 5,833 cases in 2023-24 - up from 4,972 a year earlier and from 3,050 in 2021-22.

As a proportion of all permanent exclusions, persistent disruptive behaviour cases have risen from 29.65 per cent in 2020-21 to 39.17 per cent in 2023-24.

Mr Gasson said: “Persistent disruptive behaviour has always been the most common reason for exclusion, but when I look at some of the exclusion notes recently, [the reason] can often be due to a lack of compliance with the systems a school has.

“I do question this. A school may have systems which it thinks make sense for the majority of pupils, but how much effort have they made to change what they are doing to respond to that pupil?

“And if they haven’t then it’s not only not helpful but it can also be unlawful if they are not making adjustments for pupils - particularly when this happens for those with education, health and care plans [EHCPs].”

He added: “I think if the government are serious about reducing exclusions and about inclusion then defining what persistent disruptive behaviour is would be a good starting point.”

‘Really ropey code’

Steve Howell, headteacher of the City of Birmingham School PRU, described persistent disruptive behaviour as a “really ropey code”.

“The problem is that it is too much of a ‘general catch-all’ code rather than a useful descriptor. I think all of the exclusion descriptions are in need of a complete rewrite and rethink in the same way we have done with attendance codes, which is helping to make a difference,” he said.

“It would be useful for alternative provision and PRUs if we could have more specific descriptions of what a student has been excluded for. When we get a notification it sometimes has only the basic statutory information, and when it says ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ this can mean many different things.”

Mr Howell also said that providing tighter definitions of what someone has been excluded for could address the variability in the system.

While there can never be national “standardisation” on behaviour, the wide variation in how schools approach exclusions is “significantly problematic”, he added.

Mr Howell also told Tes that, in most cases, pupils who arrived at his PRU having been excluded for persistent disruptive behaviour “did need to be here”.

Warning of ‘unintended consequences’

However, headteachers’ unions have expressed caution about a prescriptive definition of persistent disruptive behaviour.

Tom Middlehurst, deputy policy director at the Association of School and College Leaders, warned that applying an “inflexible definition over what are often complex cases” might have the “unintended consequence of reducing the ability of headteachers to reach a fair and proportionate decision”.

However, he added that “it may be worth exploring how guidance could be made more explicit, perhaps through exemplification and case studies”.

The decision to exclude permanently should only be taken in response to a serious breach or persistent breaches of the school’s behaviour policy, and where allowing the pupil to remain would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others at the school.

”Headteachers will apply those tests as conscientiously as possible based on their best judgement but there isn’t a fixed definition of exactly where these thresholds lie,” Mr Middlehurst said.

And Rob Williams, senior policy adviser at the NAHT school leaders’ union, said that, while an improved definition of persistent disruptive behaviour “could be helpful”, school leaders will “still need to be able to apply it within their unique school settings, which can vary significantly”.

Persistent disruptive behaviour “usually only leads to a permanent exclusion if it is deemed to be seriously harming the education or welfare of the pupil and/or other children or staff - and when all other measures have failed”, he added.

‘Nothing to stop’ spiralling exclusions

The latest Department for Education data for 2023-24 shows that the number of suspensions and exclusions reached record highs in England’s state schools.

The anonymous PRU head urged the government to scrutinise exclusions data more closely.

“If all our partner schools excluded at the same rate as one of the schools we work with then the system would not be able to cope,” they said. “We would be full within the first term and the local authority would have nowhere to put these students to ensure they receive an education.

“The problem is there is nothing in the system to stop this. In this case, the exclusions appear to have happened without the trustees of the trust challenging them.”

The PRU head said: “Exclusion is a legal right and I actually support permanent exclusion as a tool which needs to exist. But where you have a school or trust using permanent exclusion at a far greater rate than others in a locality, who is looking at the data and asking, ‘What is going on?’”

Staff development ‘is the answer’

Kiran Gill, CEO of charity The Difference, which works to support mainstream schools to reduce exclusions, told Tes that the answer to rising exclusions was to address staff development.

“I don’t think we can change things by tweaking the policy rubric or the codes used to describe exclusions,” she said. “That almost feels a too punitive answer when what teachers need is more support.”

She highlighted that schools are now facing challenges linked to pupils missing out on speech and communication development during the Covid pandemic, isolation resulting from poverty, and social, emotional and mental health problems.

Ms Gill added that it was necessary to give teachers the skills to be able to de-escalate.

She said: “When I worked on the Timpson review [on exclusions, published in 2019], what we saw was that the schools which excluded more pupils had behaviour policies which only focused on escalation, removal from the rooms, suspension and exclusion.

“What we also need to see is schools working on policies and training for their staff which support de-escalation and reintegration into schools.”

The DfE has been approached for comment.

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