Schools taking part in the Department for Education’s three-year School Exclusion Trial were more likely than non-trial settings to operate “no exclusion” policies, tackle behaviour problems earlier and take responsibility for organising alternative education provision for excluded pupils.
As well as fewer permanent exclusions, trial schools also reported a greater reduction in the number of pupils no longer deemed at risk of exclusion.
However, the trial, which ran from September 2011 until August 2014 and involved schools from 11 local authorities, found no difference in the education attainment of pupils at trial and non-trial schools.
Young people who are excluded from mainstream school are far more likely to leave education with few or no qualifications and become Neet (not in education, employment or training) when older.
A survey of lead teachers at 63 trial and 29 comparison schools found that just 29 per cent of trial schools had pupils that had been permanently excluded in 2012/13, compared with 62 per cent of the comparison group.
When local authorities involved in the trial were asked the same question, 30 per cent said there had been no pupil permanently excluded, compared with the 10 per cent reported by a group of 28 comparison local authorities.
A third of trial local authorities also said they had schools that operated zero exclusions policies, compared with 18 per cent of the comparison group; while 40 per cent commissioned alternative provision compared with 18 per cent of the comparison group.
Although there was no great difference between the range of support offered by trial and non-trial schools, the research found that those given greater responsibility for meeting the needs of excluded pupils were developing earlier interventions such as behaviour support and on-site alternative provision.
The report concludes: “There was a change in the pupils designated as at-risk during the trial. Many of the pupils designated at-risk at the beginning of the trial were no longer considered so at its conclusion. Schools’ judgments of pupils at risk of exclusion were reviewed regularly and adjusted when behaviour had improved.
“The change in the numbers of at-risk pupils suggests that the interventions adopted had been successful in improving pupils’ behaviour at least to the extent that they could be removed from this category.”
Schools involved in the trial were given greater freedom to commission alternative provision for excluded pupils, including local authorities passing on funding for this to be arranged.
