Number of children permanently excluded from Staffordshire school reduced by half in a year
The number of pupils permanently excluded from Staffordshire schools dropped by almost 50% last term compared to the previous year, councillors have been told.
There were no children in care permanently excluded from school during the latest autumn term – but concerns were raised by a Stafford councillor about action being taken to avoid them getting to that stage.
Only headteachers can make the decision to permanently exclude a pupil on disciplinary grounds. And there is now a requirement for headteachers to notify an excluded pupil’s social worker of the decision if they are in the care of the local authority, a report to the latest Safeguarding and Education Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting said.
Tim Moss, the council’s assistant director for education strategy and improvement, told the committee that there were 110 permanent exclusions during the 2024/25 autumn term. During the same period in the current school year (2025/26), there were 65 – a reduction of almost 50%.
He added: “We’re really pleased that this year – currently – in terms of children who are in our care we haven’t seen any permanent exclusions in the autumn term. And children subject to a protection plan didn’t receive any permanent exclusions during the autumn term.
“All districts are seeing an improvement. But challenges still remain in parts of the county, particularly in Cannock, and you can see a particular challenge around youngsters in Key Stage Four (aged 14-16).”
Headteachers are asked to complete a notification of permanent exclusion form to send to the council’s education inclusion team if they decide a pupil can no longer attend their school. A report to the committee said: “This allows us to have a comprehensive understanding of the pupil, the support services around them and an outline of the reason for exclusion.
“The decision to exclude a pupil permanently should only be taken in response to a serious breach or persistent breaches of the school’s behaviour policy; and where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others such as staff or pupils in the school. Headteachers should take reasonable steps to ensure that work is set and marked for pupils during the first five school days where the pupil will not be attending alternative provision (and) inform any support services or professionals working with the pupil or their family of the exclusion.
“A key safeguarding function of the EIO is to arrange suitable full-time education for the pupil to begin from the sixth school day after the first day the exclusion took place. Predominantly this will be met by the pupil attending their nearest pupil referral unit (PRU).
“We have six secondary PRUs, a secondary Progress Centre and one primary PRU across the county. Each excluded pupil is also discussed at the weekly Alternative Provision Panel (APP), where we will confirm and monitor their sixth day provision.”
Councillor Matthew Wallens asked: “Are we constantly meeting the target of the sixth day provision duty or have we fallen just behind?”
The committee was told the authority was “generally meeting it”. But the sixth day provision was dependent on when the school first notified the council – and it may not have been informed until five days after the exclusion date.
The council is now working with schools to ensure they inform the authority as soon as an exclusion happens, so that support can be put in place.
Councillor Ann Edgeller said: “We visited the PRU in Burton a few weeks ago and I said to the person running the school ‘how many children do you have in care’ and he said ‘quite a few’. I really worry about what we can do – as we’re all corporate parents – to help our children in care not get into this position where they are in a PRU situation?
“You said there were no exclusions for children in care (during the autumn term) which is great news. But I worry about our children in care in PRU situations – these are children who have come from probably horrific backgrounds.”
Mr Moss responded: “All our schools have got a designated teacher to support looked-after children. One of the things in the I’m Here campaign (launched by the council to boost secondary school attendance) is about making sure every youngster has a trusted individual at school they can go and have a conversation with and share some of their concerns.
“From a ‘virtual school’ perspective, we have been developing a programme called relational restorative practice (RRP). It’s about thinking about the needs of the youngster and what’s their background in terms of their trauma or attachment, and thinking about how we use that to inform the way in which we respond to youngsters.
“We have got a number of schools who are undertaking the RRP pathway. That’s to support schools in understanding the youngsters, and recognising that sometimes some of that behaviour is a response to something, rather than necessarily being something different to that.
“The other aspect we’re working on is raising attainment of disadvantaged youngsters. That’s thinking about how we support these youngsters to achieve their potential and how we support them in the classroom, particularly youngsters in care but also a broader section of youngsters with a social worker or who are involved with social care.”
