It is back to school time and so for this week’s blog we have asked Les Brown from our education team to speak about school exclusions and a recent case concerning these.
Just in time for the start of a new academic year I learned a new word relevant to schools. It is “off-rolling”. I was alerted to this term when browsing BBC news online and came across a report headed “School exclusion of autistic boy unlawful, judge rules” (BBC news online 14 August 2018).
Exclusion of a young person from their school is usually a punishment for bad behaviour. It sends a message to the pupil and their parents that discipline in the school environment must be respected. If you break the rules you will be sent out of school.
The news report was about the exclusion for one and a half days of a boy on the autistic spectrum, after he hit a teaching assistant with a ruler, punched her and pulled her hair. An action was brought with the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Judge ruled that the exclusion was unlawful. The local authority in charge of the school’s operations hoped that the exclusion would be upheld as lawful – because a child with “a tendency to physically abuse” is not protected under the Equality Act. The Judge made it clear that “aggressive behaviour is not a choice for children with autism”.
The case really is ensuring a child’s right to access reasonable education is safeguarded, even if they have a disability which leads them to have challenging behaviour. A school must make reasonable adjustments to manage difficult behaviour arising from a medical condition.
However, taking account of this decision, a school still can quite properly use exclusion where it is appropriate and “proportionate” (the lawyers’ buzz word these days, almost replacing “reasonable” as our favoured term to argue over as to meaning).
Where this story takes a concerning turn is in the wider context of pupil exclusions generally and the extent of pupils being made to leave their state-funded schooling, usually before the end of key stage 4. Not just “go home for a day”, but “get out and don’t ever come back”. Such action and / or the removing of a young person from a school’s roll of pupils has given us “off-rolling”. A new verb.
The Government has been so concerned about the number of children cast out of mainstream school education it commissioned a review this year of exclusions, to look at how schools are using exclusions and why some groups are disproportionately excluded.
I understand that in 2017, more than 22,000 children were “off-rolled” from state schools before sitting their GCSE exams, according to think tank Education Datalab. The majority of them were recorded as having transferred to “alternative provision” – but the reported reality is that children are either dropping out of schooling, or ending up in under-funded units where achievement of potential can be difficult.
Cynics may say schools wanting to avoid badly-performing pupils pulling down their GCSE success rates will be using off-rolling. A policy of that nature, of course, is unlawful. Putting aside cynicism it seems clear that off-rolling affects children from deprived homes more often than not. We all are encouraged, rightly, to be alert to equality. I wonder if certain parts of our education system are keen to off-load, not just off-roll, some young people, whose exclusion stores up trouble for society.
If you or your school is affected by exclusion of pupils, now may be the time to consult solicitors about policy and how it is operated. If we can be of assistance please do not hesitate to contact Les Brown on 0191 2069624 or email him at lbrown@jacksons-law.com.
Follow our weekly #Janesblog on Twitter, Linked-in, Facebook or Instagram.
