Early findings from research into the use of internal exclusion, suggest it may not lead to fewer external suspensions, and may in fact be associated with higher frequencies and rates of external suspension. Internal exclusion is a disciplinary sanction resulting in pupils being temporarily removed from the mainstream classroom but remaining on the school site, continuing their education in a supervised setting.
The Education Policy Institute (EPI) examined internal exclusion data from three London boroughs – Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Lewisham – and found that higher rates of internal exclusion were associated with higher frequencies and rates of suspension. Researchers were particularly interested in examining behaviour management practice amongst schools in Hackney following recent news coverage of discipline practices at a school in the borough. Tower Hamlets and Lewisham were then also selected for analysis as they share broadly similar demographic and economic profiles with Hackney, facilitating comparison. As data on classroom removal practices is not currently collected at a national scale, researchers submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to map how these practices are being used. This data was then linked with publicly available data on schools’ suspensions and permanent exclusion rates.
The researchers found considerable variation in school internal exclusion rates, ranging from under two per cent to over 50 per cent of pupils. They also found strong, positive correlations between internal exclusion and formal suspension. Higher rates of internal exclusion being associated with higher frequencies and rates of suspension suggests that internal exclusion is not currently being used as an alternative measure to suspension in their sample of London schools. Another aspect that came through in the research was that there are significant gaps in schools’ data collection. Over a fifth (21.2 per cent) of schools answering the FOI request were unable to provide data regarding their use of internal exclusion.
The EPI’s report, An analysis of London Secondary schools’ use of internal exclusion, does suggest that – given the small sample size, gaps in the data and focus on London, the findings should be treated with caution. However, they urge schools to appropriately collect and monitor data to ensure vulnerable groups are not disproportionately removed.
In the recent schools white paper ‘Every child achieving and thriving‘, the DfE announced that they will provide additional guidance on how internal exclusion should be used by schools, with the implicit aim of reducing the number of external suspensions. However, the EPI’s exploratory analysis suggests that encouraging internal exclusion is unlikely, in practice, to lead to fewer external suspensions.
Lily Wielar, Researcher (School System and Performance) at the EPI, said: ‘The DfE has recognised concerns surrounding lost learning time resulting from out-of-school suspensions and has turned its focus to the use of internal exclusion. However, our analysis shows that the practice is deeply linked with higher rates of formal suspension. This is happening in a policy vacuum where over a fifth of surveyed schools cannot provide data on their own use of the practice. As the DfE continues to support the use of internal exclusion, it is vital that we build a clear picture of how this approach is used across schools, and how pupils’ right to receive a quality education is safeguarded.’
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, commented: ‘Schools almost always use suspensions as a very last resort after other responses have been tried and when pupils’ behaviour is so serious that there is no alternative or it could affect the safety of themselves and others. Many schools already use internal suspensions as one way of managing disruptive behaviour and while the White Paper proposals could bring more consistency they do not appear to change the discretion head teachers – who know their schools and pupils best – rightly have to decide what form suspensions take. Although this survey is just a small snapshot, it is a reminder that, ultimately, suspensions in whatever form can only be part of a wider approach to responding to behaviour and may not themselves tackle underlying challenges like mental health issues or the effects of poverty which lie beyond the reach of schools to address.’