By Sally Weale, education correspondent From The Guardian UK

Too many exclusions involve children from minorities, with problem pupils jettisoned in schools’ race for ratings, says Communities Empowerment Network
Boys were three times more likely to be excluded, as were black Caribbean students.

A significant number of schools who expel pupils are acting illegally, using discriminatory practices that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable children, a charity has claimed.

The Communities Empowerment Network (CEN) made the claims as it published a study on the impact of exclusions.

Mapping the Exclusion Process: Inequality, Justice and the Business of Education is a small-scale, qualitative study based on 26 in-depth interviews with parents, head teachers and local authority workers involved with and affected by exclusions in the London area, carried out over nine months.

Although the overall number of children permanently excluded has fallen, the report claims too many exclusions are unlawful, and too often involve children with special educational needs and those from ethnic minorities.

“There is a wilful, wasteful and discriminatory war on our children,” said Prof Gus John, the founder of CEN, who was the first black director of education at a London local education authority.

The report calls for urgent reform of the current exclusions regime, which it says gives too much discretionary power to schools and does not safeguard children against poor decision-making.

It calls on schools to confront “the racism- and class-based discrimination” that persists in some institutions, and blames the results-driven, one-size-fits-all approach to education that makes exclusion inevitable.

About 3,900 children were permanently excluded from secondary schools in England in 2012-13, the most recent year for which figures are available.

There is a wilful, wasteful and discriminatory war on our children – Prof Gus John

The majority of parents who took part in the CEN research felt that race, class or gender played a role in their child’s exclusion, with young black students “frequently associated with criminality, violence or hyper-sexuality”.

Parents felt schools were favouring a “punitive zero-tolerance approach” rather than rehabilitation, and accused schools of getting rid of “problem” pupils in “the race for better Ofsted ratings”.

Even when exclusions are quashed by an independent review panel (IRP), schools are not obliged to take a child back. If a school refuses to reinstate a pupil, they are required to make a £4,000 adjustment payment to the local authority. If they agree to reinstate, wronged students often continue to feel unwanted.

For those who are permanently excluded, the consequences are damaging, the report says. Some suffer from depression and a sense of isolation; their schooling is interrupted and they often end up with an inferior education, with reduced hours and a limited timetable in a pupil referral unit.

The report would like to see the return of the independent appeal panel, which had the power to direct a school to reinstate a student they deemed had been unfairly excluded. The IRP, which replaced it 2012, does not have this power.

The report includes stories of primary-school age children who are excluded, among them five-year-old Brandon, who had emotional and behaviour issues and was permanently excluded from reception class. His family felt the school failed to provide appropriate support in the runup to the exclusion.

There is also the case of four-year-old Thomas who was permanently excluded for “sexual misconduct” after an incident with a four-year-old girl in the toilet. “These are not teenagers,” his mother Julia told researchers. “These are babies…”

Parents and children in the report are also concerned that permanent exclusion is not being used just as a last resort, as required by the Department for Education.

Maddox, who was excluded in year 10 for helping a friend to hide cannabis in the school toilet, said: “I feel like the head teacher is just trying to keep up a good reputation for himself. He does not care what I feel or what my mum feels, he is just trying to make himself look good.

“The school has a policy of, like, it doesn’t matter if it is your first day or your last day, if you get involved, they kick you straight out. But I don’t think that’s fair.”

The report also highlights the shortcomings of governing bodies who are responsible for scrutinising a head teacher’s decision to exclude, but often don’t understand the Department for Education exclusions guidance and end up rubber-stamping a head’s decision.

I feel like the head teacher is just trying to keep up his reputation. He does not care what I feel or what my mum feels
Earl Whiskey, whose 15-year-old son was permanently excluded, said: “The governing board, when reviewing the decision by the head teacher at the appeal, refused to allow my son or myself to speak, didn’t consider or review the witness statements, and the head and deputy head were asked no questions by the governors.

“They therefore upheld the head’s decision to exclude my son at a critical point in his education and without a care in the world for his welfare.” The IRP found the school had acted illegally and quashed the exclusion.

And though the overall number of exclusions have gone down, the disparities between different groups remain. According to the report, in 2012-13 pupils with special educational needs were 10 times more likely to be permanently excluded than the school population as a whole. Students on free school meals were four times more likely to be excluded; boys were three times more likely to be excluded, as were black Caribbean students.

With many students falling into one or more of these categories, “these disadvantages are compounded and overlaid in complex ways,” the report claims.

The CEN report’s findings echo those of the children’s commissioner Maggie Atkinson whose 2013 report Always Someone Else’s Problem found that thousands of pupils at hundreds of schools around the country were being illegally excluded.

Gus John said: “Despite the careful and fact-rich research conducted by the children’s commissioner and the evidence Dr Atkinson has presented to government of the extent of illegal exclusions across the country, as well as the impact of the exclusion regime on the most vulnerable of school students, the government has gone on pursuing its agenda not just to endorse and collude with existing illegal practice, but to extend the scope head teachers and governors have for denying fundamental rights to school students and their parents/carers.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said schools had a clear duty not to discriminate against pupils. “Parents tell us that school discipline is one of their main concerns and it is crucial that headteachers are able to exclude disruptive pupils so that others do not lose out on their education.

“Schools are held to account by Ofsted for their use of exclusion powers, and they and the department would take very seriously any evidence that a school had acted unlawfully.

“Our plan for education has transformed discipline in schools. 30,000 fewer pupils are being bullied today than a decade ago, fewer pupils are skipping lessons than ever before, and more teachers tell us that behaviour in their schools is good.”

All of the names in the charity’s report have been changed.

IMAGE: Boys were three times more likely to be excluded, as were black Caribbean students. Photograph: Graham Turner

For more on this story go to: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/02/many-pupils-are-expelled-illegally-and-not-as-a-last-resort-charity-alleges