DadTalk

Exclusion/Expulsion - The tyranny of terminology

Many schools now have inclusion policies that have redefined expulsion and made it hard to actually exclude disruptive students

The political system within the UK has made it very difficult for schools to permanently exclude so called ‘disruptive students’. This political imperative is backed up by financial penalties and other pressures. This in turn has led to an array of local initiatives for dealing with disruption without having to use the big E. Schools now have inclusion policies that have in many instances redefined expulsions. So it’s possible to be excluded whilst remaining included, being separate but not quite unequal. Confused? Read on.

A Head Teacher has an array of options when dealing with incidents of poor behaviour. The ultimate sanction remains permanent exclusion from school (in old money expel) albeit subject to appeal. Due to pressures, mentioned above, the use of this ultimate sanction is becoming less frequent. In the academic year 2006/7 there were 8,680 permanent exclusions compared to 8,130 in the year 2007/8 (and it is well known that incidents of poor behaviour are on the increase). This decrease does not take account of the fact that there are now a large number of short term ‘internal exclusions’. An internal exclusion is the practice of removing disruptive students from normal classes and placing them in a particular ‘unit’ within school for a specified period.

When I was at school short term exclusion was called asuspension and always involved being removed from school. There is still the practice of short term exclusion but this reflects badly on a school’s profile. A permanent exclusion was known expulsion. Most schools now have a support system for dealing with poor behaviour that rarely leads to a child being expelled (permanently excluded). For the most part the child whose behaviour is deemed totally unacceptable will be internally excluded and placed in an exclusion zone, reflection room, or similar.

Criminologist and other behaviour specialist argue that there is a causal link between (permanent) school expulsion and involvement with the police; hence government pressure. Obviously a child left to roam the streets outside of the care and control of his school is more likely to participate in criminal activities. On the other side of the argument “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch”; in other words disruptive pupils adversely affect the learning environment.

A permanent exclusion from school ‘X’ does not prohibit entry to school ‘Y’; in theory therefore a child can transfer from one school to another for the purpose of a fresh start. The law determines that a student permanently excluded is entitled to be taken on at another school within a reasonable period of time. In reality however life is seldom that simple and such students find themselves in educational purgatory often for quite long periods. These periods may involve attendance at a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). A child’s permanent exclusion from school will be noted on his records and may affect later life choices and opportunities.

Internal exclusions need not follow a child and for the most part schools do not pass on such information without prompting. This depends of course upon a child’s age and the nature of his/her offence.

Calling a spade an agricultural implement does not lessen its effectiveness but calling plywood mahogany may lead to confusion! Terminology is as important as diagnoses, it determines ones course of action. I have worked with excluded children, short term and permanent and all too often educational exclusion leads to social exclusion, in the end therefore everyone loses.