Children’s moral rights and UK school exclusions – Tillson & Oxley 2020

This post is a response to John Tillson and Laura Oxley’s (2020) article ‘Children’s moral rights and UK school exclusions’¹ which appeared in the journal Theory and Research in Education. 

I argue that an education system in which the only way that vulnerable children can access the support the need is through a damaging exclusion process cannot align with the rights of the child.

Note – The above article is an output from the Pedagogies of Punishment Project (funded by the Centre for Ethics & Education). An interview with the authors talking about the article is available on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) ² is the most widely ratified treaty in the world and Tillson and Oxley argue that the use of exclusion in UK schools may violate the moral rights of children as described by the CRC. This is against a backdrop where ‘the UK has a school exclusion rate that is 10 times greater than that of any other country in Europe’.³

They acknowledge, however, that there may be certain circumstances where it is necessary to exclude a child ‘ in order to safeguard the weighty interests of others in the school community’ ⁴. They describe this form of exclusion as ‘non-punitive’ ⁵ and put forward a broad set of recommendations including the use of exclusion as a last resort.

Whilst agreeing with each of the recommendations in the article, I would go further and argue that there is also an alternative to ‘non-punitive’ exclusion. I believe that many children needing high levels of support may be caught up in damaging exclusion procedures which were not intended for them. I contest the term ‘non-punitive’ in relation to school exclusion and offer an example of how an alternative to this system has previously worked in practice in one local authority.

Punitive and non-punitive exclusion

Tillson and Oxley (2020) describe punitive exclusion as being where the children ‘ (a) have a negative experience and (b) have committed the perceived wrong’ ⁶. Punitive exclusion may be framed as a form of moral education or as a deterrent to the child (or their peers) from acting in this way in the future.

The term ‘non-punitive’ ⁷ is used to describe an exclusion that is used solely for the reason of preventing harm (to themselves, other children or staff). It is a balanced decision and is a last resort. Tillson and Oxley⁸ describe a child (Sandra) being subject to a non-punitive’ exclusion where:

1. other strategies have been exhausted,

2. the detriment is not disproportionate to the interests others are protected in,

3. is as minimal as affordable and

4. is not for its own sake but a by-product (e.g., of the effective protection of others)

Here it is argued that the exclusion may be regarded as ‘non-punitive’ even if it is perceived to be so by the excluded child. There is no aim to stigmatise or produce feelings of rejection, however,  Tillson and Oxley ⁹ also acknowledge that ‘students subject to exclusion are likely to experience it as a rejection from the school community’. It is easy to go round in circles debating the purpose of the exclusion and how it is viewed by each party involved. I commend the efforts of all involved to frame the exclusion positively, however it is still an exclusion within a set of exclusion protocols and procedures. What I offer below is an account of an alternative system as part of a graduated response.

An alternative response (no pun intended)

As the headteacher of an alternative provision (AP) academy, I work to support children who need something other than mainstream education. For our setting, this is usually children who present with challenging behaviour in schools. In many cases, children arrive in our setting and the school has exhausted everything within their capacity in adapting to meet the child’s needs. Exclusion has been the last resort (with no punitive intention)and it is to the frustration of everyone involved that the only way for them to access alternative provision is for them to be permanently excluded.

For a period of time in our local authority, we had an alternative approach. Where a child was still struggling in school despite all adaptations and support being exhausted, their case was taken to a panel of local authority headteachers and professionals. This panel would consider the case and if they felt that as part of a graduated response, all other avenues had been exhausted, they would recommend that the LA commission a placement in AP for the child. If families were in agreement, then the child would move into AP without the need to go through any of the exclusion processes. School staff could stay in touch with both the children and families and relationships could be maintained. Children could return to their school if that was possible or may move on to access the specialist provision they need on a permanent basis. The child (Sandra) given as an example by Tillson and Oxley above would have been able to access the support she needed without the need to be involved in the exclusion process.

In conclusion

As the headteacher of an AP academy, I welcome this consideration of exclusion against the moral rights of children. The recommendations are sound and I agree that non-punitive mechanisms which allow children with SEMH needs to access support are required. However, I believe that exclusion is so firmly embedded in the UK educational discourse that some children (including those with SEMH needs) are becoming caught up is a system that was not intended for them in order to simply get access to the support they need. My belief is that where local authorities have the intelligence and data needed to judge whether a school has exhausted all other avenues of support, they should consider commissioning places in high quality AP for children without the need to resort to exclusion. Children with SEMH are often vulnerable and need high levels of support. A system in which the only way that children can access that support is through an exclusion process which damages them further cannot align with the rights of the child.

Unicef’s useful CRC summary can be found here. 

1. Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020) ‘Children’s moral rights and UK school exclusions.’ Theory and Research in Education, 18(1) pp. 40-58. 
2. UNICEFUK  (no date) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [Online][Accessed on 30th December 2020] https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/
3. Kupchick et al. cited in Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020:41) 
4. Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020:40) 
5. Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020:48) 
6. Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020:46) 
7. Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020:48) 
8. Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020:48) 
9. Tillson, J. and Oxley, L. (2020:49)