The latest exclusion figures

We finally have the latest exclusion figures. These cover the academic year 2021/22. This was the first school year without a lockdown period since 2018/19. The figures that have been released include suspension figures, but I am more interested in the debate around permanent exclusions. Also, I will be looking at the claims that dominate the debate, i.e. whether exclusions are rising or discriminatory.

Every year it is claimed that exclusions are rising, regardless of whether they are or not. This year they actually are, although that is in the context of exclusions having reached an all-time low in 2020/21.

As we can see, exclusions are still far short of pre-pandemic levels. Further context is available; we can go further back if we look at the absolute numbers, rather than the percentage rate for exclusions.

Permanent exclusions have risen from the all-time low point in the previous figures, but by historical standards, they are in no way high. There were 6495 permanent exclusions from state schools in 2021/22. For a pupil population of well over 8 million, this is a rate of just 0.08%.

As for unfairness, those looking to claim that permanent exclusions disproportionately affect ethnic minority pupils are further away than ever from having good evidence for this. Despite the overall rate of 0.08%; the exclusion rate for ethnic minority pupils was just 0.06%. White British pupils had an exclusion rate of 0.09%, which means they are 47.5% more likely to be excluded than ethnic minority pupils. The last time ethnic minority pupils were more likely to be excluded than white British pupils was in 2010/11. A lot of coverage of this issue has been particularly concerned with whether there were discrepancies affecting black pupils. The latest figures are the first to show clearly that black pupils are less likely to be excluded than white British pupils (the previous 2 years showed black pupils to be only marginally less likely to be excluded). The last time black pupils were more likely to be excluded than white British pupils was 2018/19. The racial disparities that were blatant and alarming in the 00s have now disappeared. Much of the debate in the media has not caught up, although the Guardian, often the worst newspaper for repeating claims that black pupils are more likely to be excluded, reported accurately on these rates.

Regional differences in exclusions remain dramatic, with exclusions far lower in London and the South East. This probably reflects differences in socio-economic status between regions, although it should be noted that London politicians have been among the most vocal opponents of exclusion.

A curious point about this is that opponents of permanent exclusions have repeatedly used alleged disparities between white British and black pupils, or white British and ethnic minority pupils, as a reason to reduce exclusions. However, when looking at the regions of England, these racial disparities are found only where the exclusion rates are lowest. It is only in Inner London, where the exclusion rates are the lowest in England, that ethnic minority pupils are more likely to be excluded than white British pupils.

It is only in Inner London, Outer London and the South East (the three regions with the lowest rate of exclusions) where black pupils are more likely to be excluded than white British pupils.

While I won’t claim to know the factors affecting these differences, it seems apparent that low exclusion rates have not prevented the racial disparities that the advocates of lowering exclusions claim to be concerned about. We can probably conclude that preventing, or reducing exclusions, is not a policy that can be reasonably supported on grounds of reducing these disparities.

Beyond this, most patterns have remained as expected. There are some smaller ethnic groups with higher rates of exclusion than white British pupils. Some of these are due to what appears to be random variation. Some will be due to the way some of the most disadvantaged groups have consistently higher exclusion rates. SEND pupils remain more likely to be excluded, but this is mainly related to SEMH. FSM pupils, boys and older pupils are all much more likely to be excluded.

The reasons for exclusions have changed a little. This is the second year of figures that have allowed schools to give more than one reason for exclusion. I have calculated each reason as a percentage of total exclusions. This differs from the percentages published on the DfE website which are based on the total number of reasons given for exclusions.

The most noticeable changes are an increase in “Persistent Disruptive Behaviour” as a reason for exclusion and a decrease in “Use or threat of use of an offensive weapon or prohibited item”. The former might be a result of not having lockdown as a break in the persistence of the behaviour. I can’t think of an explanation for the latter. Debate rages over what “Persistent Disruptive Behaviour” means (or at least we continue to hear from non-teachers convinced it must mean something trivial). Still, it is noticeable that all the other major categories seem obviously very serious, with the two types of assault very well represented in the data.

Obviously, in this post, I’ve looked only at the issues that get the most media coverage. There may be exciting details in the figures that I have not yet spotted;  I’ll try to keep you informed about this. I will also be putting in Freedom Of Information requests for more detail about some of the issues in the data.