School Suspensions - Report - 25 May 2010

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

School Suspensions

Presented to the States on 25th May 2010

S.R.7/2010

Contents

Chairman's Foreword

1. Terms of Reference
2. Sub-Panel Membership
3. Main Panel Membership
4. Expert Advisers

2. Explanation of terms
3. Key Findings
4. Recommendations
5. Introduction
6. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture's suspension policy for schools
7. Suspension figures
8. How the suspension policy is applied
9. Support provided to students during the suspension process
10. Parental involvement in the suspension process
11. Other behaviour management strategies
12. Pupils being moved from one school to another
13. Support for teachers
14. Students with behavioural or learning difficulties
15. Early intervention
16. Inter-agency communication
17. Structure of the Island's secondary education system
18. Conclusion
19. Appendix:

19.1 Evidence gathering

Chairman's Foreword

Student suspension has been one of many school-related issues causing growing concern to public and professionals alike in recent years. Not just in terms of increasing numbers but also the more fundamental question as to what mix of social/educational/health problems may underlie this. Indeed, as was witnessed within the process of the Sub-Panel's investigation, the issues provoked passionate opinions of the justification and effectiveness of suspension.

It should thus be stated quite clearly at this point that the Sub-Panel entered into the suspension review with no preconceived ideas or ready-made solutions. For each member of the Sub-Panel, I know that I can add quite without fear of contradiction that this was very much a learning experience where our eventual collective findings and recommendations were based entirely on analysis of the experiences and evidence we were presented with.

The one thing always kept firmly in mind for each of us as the review unfolded was that we were absolutely determined that in striving for solutions each of the following stakeholders within any suspension process would be treated with equal concern:

The student experiencing/causing problems

Other students being impacted upon by those behaviours

The teacher striving to deliver education

The parents/guardians of a suspended pupil

During the review the Sub-Panel consulted a significant range of witnesses. These included both head and frontline teachers, parents and a number of professionals from other fields whose work took them into contact with suspended students. We also undertook a number of visits to witness work firsthand. All of these were highly useful in helping the Sub-Panel reach its conclusions.

Nevertheless, it must also be noted that we found this process far from satisfactory. This is perhaps not surprising given the format of the Scrutiny process. With the exception of meeting two students at one of the visited schools, the lack of volunteered student input – whether former or current – to outline how suspension had impacted upon them must be seen as a clear shortcoming: albeit one largely out of our control.

However, a second, more worrying problem which was noted by all four politicians on the Sub-Panel and our two advisors, was one that lies within the wholly inadequate Code of Practice for Scrutiny Panels and the Public Accounts Committee. This is the fact that we were denied the opportunity to interview headteachers and frontline staff without the need to first notify the Department of Education, Sport and Culture's (ESC) Chief Officer – even when we knew of staff that would like to give evidence and felt a need to do so.

This was deeply inhibiting and is a matter that the Sub-Panel believes must be rectified as a matter of urgency in the interest of future reviews. In a nutshell, giving evidence that may need to be highly critical if it is to be beneficial to future practice, with your employer sitting next to you noting your every word, simply cannot be conducive to getting to the heart of the matter. If both Ministers and Chief Officers are genuinely committed to an open and effective Scrutiny process I sincerely hope they will join the Sub-Panel in our efforts to put an end to this.

Finally, having expressed the thanks of the Sub-Panel to all who gave us evidence, to the headteachers who arranged for us to visit their schools, and lastly but by no means least, to our excellent Scrutiny Officer, Sam Power, it would be remiss of me if I did not comment on one further matter.

Having become increasingly concerned as to the depth of problems experienced by parents whose children were having to cope with suspensions arising from Autistic Spectrum Disorders, the Sub-Panel was very pleased to learn during the course of the review that ESC had suddenly announced its intentions to set up a small specialist unit to work with students experiencing acute problems. As one of my colleagues observed: "Perhaps Scrutiny can make a difference after all – even if Ministers do very rarely give it any credit"

Far more important, of course, even in difficult economic times such as these, is that we as elected representatives  fully  take  on  board  that  when  it  comes  to  the  education  of  our  young  people expenditure really must be seen as long term investment rather than short term cost. For without such a change in mindset, we will always fall short of delivering what we could and undoubtedly should deliver.

Deputy Trevor Pitman

Education and Home Affairs Sub-Panel Chairman School Suspensions Review

1. Terms of Reference

1. To consider the Education Department's suspension policy for schools, with particular regard to the following:

1. How this policy is applied, including whether it is applied consistently and proportionately;
2. How this policy is monitored;
3. The guidance provided to schools on the application of this policy;
4. How students' education is supported during periods of suspension;
5. Any human rights implications;
6. How this policy and its application may have impacted upon teachers and

other students in the classroom.

1. To consider whether there has been any variation in suspension rates over recent years.
2. To consider whether suspension rates vary across schools.
3. To examine any further issues relating to the topic that may arise in the course of the Scrutiny Review and which the Panel considers relevant.

2. Sub-Panel Membership

For the purposes of this review, the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel established the following Sub-Panel:

Deputy T M Pitman, Chairman

Deputy M Tadier , Vice-Chairman

[1]

Connétable G F Butcher

Deputy J M Maçon

3. Main Panel Membership

The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel itself comprised the following members:

Deputy R G Le Hérissier, Chairman Deputy T M Pitman, Vice-Chairman Connétable G F Butcher

Deputy M Tadier

4. Expert Advisers

The Education and Home Affairs Panel appointed the following expert advisers:

Mrs Gillian Bunting

Former teacher and tertiary lecturer, Highlands College

Professor Pamela Munn

Professor of Curriculum Research, University of Edinburgh

2. Explanation of terms

Abbreviations and explanation of terms used frequently in the report, in alphabetical order:

ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder

ASD Autistic Spectrum Disorder

CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

EBD Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

ESC Department of Education, Sport and Culture

Mainstream Schools Schools that are not special schools

MAST Multi Agency Support Teams

NASUWT National  Association  of  Schoolmasters/Union  of

Women Teachers

Private secondary schools States  secondary  schools

States fee-paying secondary schools

Beaulieu Convent and De La Salle College

Grainville;  Haute  Vallée;  Le  Rocquier;  Les

Quennevais ; Hautlieu

Jersey College for Girls and Victoria College

3. Key Findings

1. There is evidence that the suspension policy has not always been applied consistently. The Sub-Panel therefore welcomes the new policy, which is far more comprehensive than the existing policy. The new policy helps to fill some of the gaps in communication and guidelines that exist in the current suspension policy. [Section 6]
2. The Sub-Panel acknowledges that the Department of Education, Sport and Culture already collects suspension data internally. However, the production of publicly available annual statistics documenting the number of suspensions that have occurred during each school year would increase transparency and enable both individual schools and the Department to pick up any trends in suspension figures relating to factors such as race, bullying or family issues. The Sub-Panel appreciates that providing public suspension statistics broken down by individual schools may have negative implications for students' education at certain schools. It is therefore not believed necessary for these statistics to name schools individually. However, they should provide comprehensive data on the generic suspension figures for any given year. A good example of the format of this data would be the Scott ish Government's annual publication, in which statistics are provided by sector - for example primary, secondary and special schools. [Section 7]
3. Anecdotally, it would appear that there has not been enough training for teachers on the application of the suspension policy. This situation needs to be addressed with the introduction of the new suspension policy as a matter of urgency. [Sections 8.1-8.3]
4. Differences in terms of school demographics, student and parent involvement means consistency in applying the current suspension policy is difficult to ensure. [Sections 8.4-8.11]
5. The Sub-Panel is concerned by comments from some teachers regarding disruptive students taking up too much teaching time. The Sub-Panel sees nurturing students as key to a teacher's role. [Sections 8.26-8.27]
6. The implementation of suspensions appears to be too frequently dictated by the limitation of resources available, rather than what is in the best interests of the student. [Sections 8.28-8.29]
7. Suspensions can provide an opportunity for reflection and re-evaluation on the part of parents and pupils and highlight an issue that the parent may not have previously been aware of. However, when students are continually receiving suspensions and are missing out on large periods of their education, this is not appropriate. In these cases serious consideration needs to be given to the suspended student and the focus should be on finding a solution that works, as in these instances,

suspensions are not providing that mechanism. [Sections 8.30-8.32]

8. The process for issuing work during periods of suspensions needs to be improved and standardised across all schools. The Sub-Panel was pleased to note that this was recognised as an area for improvement by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture and commends the provision of an alternative location for looked after children who are suspended from school. [Sections 9.1-9.9]
9. High levels of parental support are vital to the success of the suspension process. [Sections 10.1-10.14]
10. The policy on contacting parents regarding the issuing of suspensions has not always been implemented consistently. [Sections 10.1-10.14]
11. Parents may be reluctant to exercise their rights, or may be unaware of them. Some parents may also be intimidated by schools and too daunted to challenge professionals on issues to do with their child's education. As such, a service that helps parents to understand their rights and responsibilities would be one way of avoiding relationships becoming legalistic and confrontational. [Sections 10.15-10.18]
12. It is clear that Jersey's current education structure, which includes States secondary schools, States fee-paying secondary schools, and private secondary schools, means that the States secondary schools are required to work with the majority of students with behavioural or learning difficulties. The Sub-Panel hopes that this issue will be considered during the Department of Education, Sport and Culture's review into the Island's secondary education system. [Sections 11.1-11.14]
13. It is of concern to the Sub-Panel that despite Jersey College for Girls and Victoria College receiving States funding, problematic students may still be transferred to States secondary schools. The headteachers of these schools suggested that such transfers were often in the best interests of these pupils. This is not acceptable as the schools are opting out of working with students that the States secondary schools then have a requirement to educate. This suggests that the States fee- paying secondary schools are not fully meeting their duty of care to such students. [Sections 12.1-12.4]
14. A range of provisions exist within the education system to meet a variety of needs. It is essential for the student and their family to be central in the consideration of any moves between schools. [Sections 12.5-12.12]
15. The Sub-Panel fully supports the recommendation from the Serious Case Review for school staff to receive training to assist with the identification of difficult behaviour as a symptom of distress.

[Sections 13.1-13.12]

16. Depending on their condition, suspending students with special educational needs could have severe implications. However, the Sub-Panel is concerned that the statistical information provided did not enable us to establish whether students with special educational needs within mainstream schools are suspended. The Sub-Panel would condemn the suspension of students for behaviour that is a result of any special educational needs. Such students require help and support to meet their needs, not suspension. [Sections 14.1-14.22]
17. The Sub-Panel welcomes the fact that during the course of its review the Department of Education, Sport and Culture has put forward plans to open a small dedicated unit specifically for students with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder. [Sections 14.21-14.22]
18. Any reluctance to diagnose learning or behavioural difficulties due to funding implications is completely unacceptable. [Sections 15.1-15.12]
19. Significant work needs to be undertaken in the Island involving parents and professionals to remove any stigma associated with obtaining a diagnosis of any special educational need. [Sections 15.1-15.12]
20. Numerous parents outlined how appreciative they were of CAMHS and the service it provides and the Sub-Panel wishes this to be noted. [Sections 16.1-16.6]
21. MAST seems to function well, but communication would be improved with the introduction of primary mental health workers. [Sections 16.1-16.8]
22. There is a demonstrable benefit in introducing social workers to the Island's secondary schools. [Sections 16.9-16.11]
23. Police liaison officers played a valued and positive role in the Island's secondary schools. [Section 16.13]
24. It is the schools' responsibility to ensure that they are fully aware of the home environment they are sending children to when they suspend them. [Sections 16.14-16.15]
25. The Sub-Panel fully supports the recommendations from the Serious Case Review for greater liaison between designated teachers for child protection in schools and the Education Department, in addition to improved liaison between Education and the Children's Service. [Sections 16.1-16.15]

26. Education should be seen as investment and not as expenditure. Cuts to school budgets are likely to ultimately end up costing society more in the long run, and leading to increased pressure on other budgets. [Sections 17.1-17.5]
27. The Sub-Panel welcomes the review of secondary education by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture, and looks forward to receiving its report in June 2010. [Sections 17.1-17.5]
28. Although only briefly considered during the course of the Sub-Panel's review, based on the comments received, league tables would not be a useful introduction to the Island's educational system. The Sub-Panel accepts the need for transparency and accountability, but this needs to be balanced against the impact of any such introduction. [Sections 17.6-17.9]

4. Recommendations

1. Standardised training should be provided to headteachers and all frontline staff including teachers and teaching assistants, in all schools, on the new policy guidelines and the rationale for them so that all are fully aware of the regulations and how these should be applied. This will help to ensure the policy will be applied consistently across all schools. [Section 6]
2. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture should seek to produce publicly available annual statistics documenting the number of suspensions that have occurred during each school year. These should be in a form which provides information about the number of pupils suspended, and their characteristics, such as age, gender, any special need and number of times suspended as well as the absolute number of suspensions. [Section 7]
3. Dedicated units should be provided in all schools to enable students to stay on the premises during periods of suspension but out of the mainstream classrooms and therefore not disrupting other pupils. These facilities would encourage inclusion if used appropriately and not as sin bins'. They would also allow headteachers sufficient flexibility to use the facilities as they felt necessary. [Sections 8.4-8.11]
4. Any part-time timetables need to be initiated on the basis that they are in the best interests of the student concerned. The reasoning behind all part-time timetables should be made clear so that all parties are aware of the reasons behind the introduction of such packages. Any part-time timetables being instigated by schools as a result of resource issues are simply not acceptable. A clear timetable for returning to full-time lessons also needs to be provided. [Sections 8.15-8.29]
5. Consideration should be given to extending the provision for looked after children at the Alternative Curriculum site for students with frequent suspensions, to ensure that they are still able to access education. [Sections 8.15-8.29]
6. Alternative ways of working with students who are frequently being suspended need to be established. Getting to the root of problem behaviour is essential and any diagnosis needs to be followed with appropriate methods of intervention. Whether this includes the provision of units on site, adapted timetables or alternative educational initiatives and practical qualifications, serious consideration needs to be given to getting to the root of the problem, rather than continually issuing suspensions to the same students. [Sections 8.30-8.32]
7. If a student has been suspended as a result of assaulting a teacher, the teacher should not have to face that student again in a classroom situation unless the issue has been fully resolved with

collective input from all involved in the incidents. [Section 8.33]

8. All schools need to set work for suspended pupils as a matter of course. The Department needs to ensure that this practice is occurring consistently by putting in place a central monitoring element within the suspension process. However, the Sub-Panel accepts that in some cases it may be necessary for the headteacher to use his/her discretion to decide whether the setting of work is appropriate. [Sections 9.1-9.9]
9. Parents need to be made aware that the school should set work for suspended pupils. Parents also should be reminded that they need to ensure this work is completed. [Sections 9.1-9.9]
10. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture should bring forward legislation as a matter of urgency requiring a parent or guardian to attend a reintegration meeting following a period of suspension. [Sections 10.1-10.14]
11. The Sub-Panel is pleased to note that it has received confirmation from the Department of Education, Sport and Culture that under the new guidelines all the suspension letter templates will be available to all schools in Polish and Portuguese, and recommends that this should further include the suspension policy itself. [Sections 10.1-10.14]
12. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture should issue revised guidance to parents about their rights and responsibilities under the school system. [Sections 10.15-10.18]
13. An independent parent advocacy service should be established as a matter of urgency to ensure that parental rights are upheld, including provision of support with appeals. Full details of this service should be sent to all parents. [Sections 10.15-10.18]
14. Parenting workshops should be established in all schools. [Sections 10.15-10.18]
15. Closer working and sharing of expertise between special and mainstream schools needs to be developed to provide reintegration to mainstream schools where possible and where appropriate. [Section 12]
16. The Sub-Panel strongly recommends that all teachers and teaching support staff should receive the SPELL training raising awareness of Autistic Spectrum Disorders as a matter of course. [Sections 13.9-13.14]
17. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture should introduce regular training for teachers

and teaching support staff to assist them with working with students with emotional and behaviour difficulties as well as behaviour management training. The Department should also keep central records of training attendance. [Section 13]

18. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture should issue revised guidelines to schools with regard to working with students with special educational needs. Wherever possible these students should have the opportunity to spend time in a specialised provision rather than being suspended. In addition, the Department should make available to parents a list of schools with specialist expertise in learning, communication and behavioural difficulties. [Section 14]
19. Efforts need to be made by the Departments of Education, Sport and Culture and Health and Social Services to ensure that any misconceptions regarding the reason for parents not receiving diagnoses of their children's needs are addressed. [Section 15]
20. Any records of need should be in place at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure students are able to access the full range of resources available to them. [Section 15]
21. Primary mental health workers should be introduced to provide a link between schools and CAMHS. [Sections 16.1-16.8]
22. Funding should be provided for dedicated social workers for each of the Island's four 11-16 secondary schools as a matter of urgency. [Sections 16.9-16.11]
23. Consideration should be given to a representative from the Comité des Chefs de Police sitting on MAST. [Section 16.12]
24. All secondary schools should have access to a dedicated police liaison officer. [Section 16.13]
25. If there are any concerns regarding a suspended student's home environment, s/he should spend periods of suspension at the Alternative Curriculum provision in the same way that this process operates for looked after children. [Section 16.14-16.15]

5. Introduction

1. In recent years the safety and the well being of the Island's children has been at the forefront of public and media attention. The focus of this interest has predominantly been on the care of the Island's vulnerable children. However, with some media articles highlighting that students have been
   2. [3]

suspended for assaulting teachers, the issues of students' behaviour in school and of subsequent student suspensions have also been brought on to the public's radar.

2. As a result of concerns that the number of students' being suspended has increased in recent years, questions have also been asked in the States regarding the exact figures for school

[4]

suspensions. The suspension policy is an issue now receiving consideration by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture. In response to one of the questions asked in the States, the Minister for

Education, Sport and Culture confirmed that he had made a commitment to review the application of the suspension policy and the guidance provided to the Island's schools. It was further stated that this

[5] aspect would be considered as part of the inclusion review to be conducted across schools in 2009.

The Minister committed to undertaking the inclusion review in the department's 2009 business plan,

where objective 6 (vi) stated:

"Inclusive educational practice reviewed in primary schools, secondary schools and Highlands College."

The department's 2010 Business Plan builds on this and objective 4 states:

"To develop programmes and initiatives designed to promote social inclusion and equal

opportunity."

Part (ii) of this objective applies specifically to school suspensions and states that new guidance on improving behaviour and managing suspensions will be implemented across all schools.

3. As a result of increased interest in this area, and the concerns expressed that figures for school suspensions were increasing, the Sub-Panel undertook to review this issue.
4. By undertaking this review the Sub-Panel's aim was to ensure that the suspension guidance provided to schools and parents is clear. The Sub-Panel also wanted to ascertain whether the issuing of suspensions was being applied consistently and in the best long-term interests of all involved, including the suspended student, their parents/guardian, the teachers, and the other students within the school.
5. When considering examples of parents who have come to the Sub-Panel with concerns regarding the suspension process, the Sub-Panel appreciates that it is likely to hear only from individuals who have had a negative experience with the system. As such, the Sub-Panel acknowledges that these submissions, while clearly valid in their own right, are not necessarily a representative view. The Sub-Panel nevertheless maintains the view that even if one child is being let down by the system then the underlying reasons for that failing need to be investigated and corrected. The overarching aim of this review, therefore, is to ensure that the process by which suspensions are

issued is as effective as possible in its management of students' behaviour. The Sub-Panel heard from parents from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds during the course of its review. The resulting evidence has not sustained the social stereotypes that tend to belie this issue.

6. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture's suspension policy for schools

1. Under Article 36 of the Education (Jersey) Law 1999, a pupil can only be suspended or expelled [6]

from a provided school by the headteacher. The legislation states:

"36 Suspension and expulsion of pupils

1. The power to suspend or expel a pupil from a provided school shall only be exercisable by the headteacher.
2. The headteacher of a provided school may not suspend a pupil for a period of more than 5 days or an aggregate period of more than 15 days in any school term without the agreement in writing of the Chief Officer.
3. The headteacher of a provided school may not expel a pupil without having obtained, firstly, the agreement in writing of the Chief Officer and, secondly, if the Chief Officer so agrees, the agreement in writing of the governing body of the school, if any."

Current suspension policy

2. The current student suspension policy is entitled Reducing Disaffection' and forms Section 6 of the Special Education Needs Policies. The current policy outlines suspension as the most powerful sanction that schools possess. The policy goes on to state that all Jersey schools must have a clearly stated behaviour policy which includes a Code of Conduct based on rules, responsibilities, rewards and consequences which is made available to all parents when their child starts a new school.
3. The policy explains that exclusion is a disciplinary measure that the headteacher of a school uses to deal with incidents of serious misbehaviour. Two types of exclusion are outlined in the policy and on the gov.je website:

"a) Suspension:

This is for a specified number of days. The headteacher may suspend a pupil for up to 5 days at any one time up to a maximum of 15 days in any one school term. For longer suspensions the headteacher must obtain the agreement in writing of the Director of Education, Sport and Culture.

b) Expulsion:

[7]

Expulsion is rare in Jersey. Before a headteacher can expel a pupil, that is permanently removing a

pupil from the school's register, s/he must firstly obtain the agreement in writing of the Director of Education, Sport and Culture and secondly, if the Director so agrees, the agreement in writing of the governing body of the school, if any."

4. The Policy outlines the following grounds for suspension:

Threatened or carried out violence;

Acted in a manner that threatens the good order of the school or the safety and well being of a member of the school community;

Persistently interfered with the teacher's ability to teach and pupil's ability to learn;

Committed a criminal offence in school or a serious offence out of school that will put other pupils at risk;

Shown persistent and wilful inattention or indifference to school rules and discipline.

5. The policy goes on to outline steps that schools are expected to have taken prior to suspension, in addition to methods to overcome challenging behaviour before resorting to suspension. The policy provides a standardised tariff of suspensions in order to ensure consistency and moderation in the use of suspensions across all schools. The tariff describes the offences pupils may have committed in order for them to be suspended for up to: 2 days; 5 days; 10 days and 15 days. Suspension is seen as a last resort.

New suspension policy

6. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture is in the process of compiling a new policy, which is entitled Guidance on Improving Behaviour and Reducing Exclusion'. This policy is far more comprehensive and detailed than the existing policy, and contains key sections on parental rights and responsibilities, including their rights of appeal, as well as outlining the role of the various agencies involved, such as the Governing Body and the Department of Education, Sport and Culture. Importantly, this policy also includes model letters to be sent to parents/carers explaining that their child has been excluded from school.
7. During the public hearing with the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture, the new policy was described in the following terms:

"When I became Minister for Education, Sport and Culture there were a number of commitments I made and one was to review the current suspension policy which the department has been carrying out over the last number of months. As the panel will be aware, we have provided a draft policy for you to consider and it is our aim for the most part today to talk and focus our

[8]

attention on the draft policy that we are developing."

8. With reference to the new policy, the Director of Education, Sport and Culture stated:

"If I can just clarify, the draft policy is communicating much of the stuff that is already happening

[9]

in the schools and the gap here is that it has not been laid out in that form before."

KEY  FINDING  1:  There  is  evidence  that  the  suspension  policy  has  not  always  been  applied consistently. The Sub-Panel therefore welcomes the new policy, which is far more comprehensive than  the  existing  policy. The  new  policy helps to  fill  some  of  the gaps  in  communication and guidelines that exist in the current suspension policy.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Standardised training should be provided to headteachers and all frontline staff including teachers and teaching assistants, in all schools, on the new policy guidelines and the rationale for them so that all are fully aware of the regulations and how these should be applied. This will help to ensure the policy will be applied consistently across all schools.

7. Suspension figures

1. A comparison between Jersey and England suspension statistics from 2005 to 2008 is outlined in the table below:

[10] Table 1: Comparison between Jersey and England Suspension Figures from 2005 - 2008

School Type 2005/2006 (6) 2006/2007 England Jersey England Jersey

Primary Schools (1)

Number of fixed period exclusions 13 45,730 7 Percentage of fixed period exclusions 4 11 2

(%) (7)

Percentage of school population (8) 0.23 1.11 0.13 State funded secondary schools (1)(2)

Number of fixed period exclusions 317 363,270 357 Percentage of fixed period exclusions 87 85 88

(%) (7)

Percentage of school population (8) 6.28 10.94 6.96 Special schools (3)

Number of fixed period exclusions 0 16,600 0 Percentage of fixed period exclusions 0 4 0

(%) (7)

Percentage of school population (8) 0.00 18.56 0.00 All schools

Number of fixed period exclusions 364 425,600 405 Percentage of fixed period exclusions 100 100 100

(%) (7)

Percentage of school population (8) 3.37 5.66 3.75

Figure 1: Suspension rate comparison between Jersey, England and Scotland: Fixed period

[11]

only

Jersey England Scotland

Percen

Sector

2. These statistics should be treated with caution as they indicate the number of fixed term exclusions in each jurisdiction, not the number of pupils who have been excluded. They also tend to underestimate the number of exclusions because headteachers in all jurisdictions may informally exclude pupils rather than use standard procedures. Nevertheless, they reveal some important information. Firstly, it is commendable that no pupils have been excluded from special schools in Jersey in the time covered, in marked contrast to England and Scotland. Secondly, while fixed term exclusion rates in Jersey tend to be a little lower than in England or Scotland, there has been a steady increase in fixed term exclusions from secondary schools in Jersey between 2005 and 2007. The increase in 2007/08 contrasts with a decline in absolute numbers of fixed term exclusions in England. The steady increase in fixed term exclusions in Jersey secondary schools is in marked contrast to the small fluctuations in exclusion from primary schools on the Island.
3. During school visits, the Sub-Panel was made aware that some headteachers routinely collected sophisticated information about the number of pupil referrals to more senior staff for negative behaviour. This information enabled the headteachers and senior management teams to identify patterns of negative behaviour and to design interventions for pupils and/or staff. This provided an excellent early warning system in respect of pupils who might be heading toward suspension and enabled avoidance action to be taken. This information would be shared with the headteacher's professional partner' in reviewing the school's behaviour management policy and practices. The Sub- Panel commends this practice.

Availability of statistics

4. During the course of its review, the Sub-Panel considered the availability of annual suspension statistics from the Island's schools. Although statistics were provided to the Sub-Panel by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture upon request, no statistics are made publicly available by the Department on an annual basis.

[12]

5. The Scott ish Government produces an annual publication entitled Exclusions from Schools. This document provides detailed statistics outlining the number of exclusions during the year, and is

broken down by a number of demographic variables including: education provision during exclusions; the ethnic background of excluded pupils; excluded pupils with a disability; and exclusion amongst pupils with English as an additional language. The availability of such comprehensive statistics helps to demonstrate which variables are leading to greater numbers of exclusions, and therefore helps professionals in the education system to ensure they are able to provide different initiatives to try to tackle these problem areas.

6. Upon being questioned, the Director of Education, Sport and Culture said that the Department

does keep suspension statistics internally:

"All  suspensions  are  required  to  be  submitted  to  the  department,  the  reasons  for  the suspension, the detail of the incident, the action taken. That is recorded on a database that enables professional partners at the department to challenge the schools on effectively what is happening, where the focus is. It also enables the schools, if the information has been used effectively, to identify areas which they may need to focus on. So, for example, if you had a number of suspensions and they were around something like bullying, then you would be expecting the school to focus on addressing bullying as an issue. Sometimes there are other things that the school might be focusing on. It depends what the data is throwing up. So the

data is used for 2 purposes: (1) to challenge the school to make sure that arrangements and the policy that is in place is being followed and (2) to give the school information which they can

[13]

learn from to help them address any broader issues that may be apparent."

KEY FINDING 2: The Sub-Panel acknowledges that the Department of Education, Sport and Culture already collects suspension data internally. However, the production of publicly available annual statistics documenting the number of suspensions that have occurred during each school year would increase transparency and enable both individual schools and the Department to pick up any trends in suspension figures relating to factors such as race, bullying or family issues. The Sub-Panel appreciates that providing public suspension statistics broken down by individual schools may have negative implications for students' education at certain schools. It is therefore not believed necessary for these statistics to name schools individually. However, they should provide comprehensive data on the generic suspension figures for any given year. A good example of the format of this data would be the Scott ish Government's annual publication, in which statistics are provided by sector - for example primary, secondary and special schools.