There are some ‘grey areas’ of exclusion and some unofficial exclusion practices that take place in schools.

Unofficial and informal exclusions can make it hard for parents to fight for the rights of their child. In some cases, they may even be unlawful.

What are the 'grey areas' of exclusion?

The grey areas of exclusion include:

• informal exclusions
• internal exclusions
• part-time timetables
• managed moves and off-rolling
• excluding pupils from school trips and afterschool clubs.

Legislation and guidance outline schools’ and local authorities’ responsibilities in relation to suspension and permanent exclusion. However, some schools and local authorities deviate from this law and guidance and bend the rules.

Why do schools deviate from the law and guidance?

Schools are becoming increasingly competitive, needing to attract parents and pupils. Schools aim to receive a positive inspection judgement, for example from Ofsted. If an autistic pupil displays behaviour that may be considered aggressive, headteachers are faced with the decision of whether or not to exclude them.

Headteachers may fear an inspection finding that this behaviour is impacting on the achievement of pupils. However, to inspectors, high levels of exclusion may indicate underlying weaknesses in the school.

Schools are required to report exclusions, and headteachers should be aware that they should not discriminate against pupils with disabilities. As a result, some schools use covert methods of excluding pupils in order to conceal this important information.

These methods are rarely in the best interests of the child and can have a lasting impact on their progress and wellbeing.

Informal exclusion

Occasionally, a school may ask parents to take a pupil home ‘to cool off’, or to keep them at home without officially excluding them. This gives parents the impression that the school is being compassionate by not adding an exclusion to the pupil's school record.

However, this practice can result in pupils losing out on their education. It can also lead to parents losing their right to challenge the exclusion.

Any exclusion of a pupil, even for short periods of time, must be formally recorded and follow the correct procedure. Informal exclusions (including those lasting for an indefinite period) are unlawful, regardless of whether or not parents have agreed to them. (paragraph 19 Suspension and permanent exclusion guidance 2022)

Internal exclusions

Internal exclusions are used to remove a pupil from class, but not from the school site, for disciplinary reasons. Although there should be a formal process, reflected in the school’s behaviour policy, it is not legally an exclusion, so exclusion legislation and guidance do not apply.

The Department for Education's (DfE) guidance on Behaviour in schools says that removal from a classroom should be used for the following reasons:

• to maintain the safety of all pupils and to restore stability following an unreasonably high level of disruption;
• to enable disruptive pupils to be taken to a place where education can be continued in a managed environment; and
• to allow the pupil to regain calm in a safe space.

Internal exclusion should not become a provision for long-term respite care or a way of avoiding meeting the needs of pupils who may need specific support.

• The DfE guidance also says that parents should be informed on the same day if their child has been removed from the classroom and that this kind of removal from class should be distinguished from the use of separation spaces (sometimes known as sensory or nurture rooms) for non-disciplinary reasons. For instance, where a pupil is taken out of the classroom to regulate his or her emotions because of identified sensory overload as part of a planned response.

Part-time timetables

All children of compulsory school age should receive full-time education, in line with legislation. 

In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary part-time timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs, but not because a school can not cope or lacks resources, such as the availability of one-to-one staff.

The DfE Suspension and permanent exclusion guidance says that ‘a part-time timetable should not be used to manage a pupil’s behaviour and must only be in place for the shortest time necessary. Any pastoral support programme or other agreement should have a time limit by which point the pupil is expected to attend full-time, either at school or alternative provision. There should also be formal arrangements in place for regularly reviewing it with the pupil and their parents’ (paragraph 29).

The Timpson Review of School Exclusion (May 2019) found that ‘there are schools inappropriately routinely using part-time timetables, where schools allow children to attend for only part of the school day, in an attempt to legitimise an informal exclusion. Though this can be necessary in exceptional cases, many parents and carers spoke of long-term arrangements spanning several years to which they had not consented, which simply amounted to their child not being offered a full-time education.’ 

In some cases, parents can argue that their autistic child is being denied the right to attend school on a full-time basis because the school does not have the resources to provide the pupil with the support they require on a full-time basis, which would be discrimination arising from disability, unless it can be justified. You might find our information about disability discrimination helpful.

Managed moves and off-rolling

Sometimes, parents and schools may agree that a fresh start in a different school would benefit a child who is at risk of suspension or permanent exclusion. This is known as a ‘managed move’.  Where a pupil has an EHC plan, the local authority will need to follow the statutory procedures for amending a plan.

Managed moves should only occur in the child’s best interests and be voluntary and agreed with all parties involved, including the parents. If a parent believes that they are being pressured into a managed move or is unhappy with a managed move, they can take up the issue through the school’s formal complaints procedure and, where appropriate, the local authority. 

Growing concerns around the use of ‘off-rolling’ were highlighted by the Timpson Review of School Exclusions (2019):

“There are times when a child is taken off the school roll for legitimate reasons, such as if they have moved out of the area or because their parents have independently chosen to home educate them. However, there are children who are made to leave their school and are removed from the school roll without a formal permanent exclusion or by the school encouraging the parents to remove their child from the school, which is done in the school’s interests, and at the school’s request. This practice is referred to from here onwards as ‘off-rolling’.”

The DfE Suspension and permanent exclusion guidance says that Ofsted will consider any evidence found of a parent being pressured into a managed move that has resulted in off-rolling and is likely to judge a school as inadequate on the basis of such evidence (para 51)

School trips and after school clubs

Autistic pupils who have been deliberately excluded from a trip can find this distressing. Exclusion can generate feelings of isolation, inferiority, injustice and anger.

If schools work with autistic pupils, their parents and other schools, they can learn what reasonable adjustments can be made so autistic pupils can take part in, and benefit from, a trip or activity.

If pupils are excluded from trips and clubs, intentionally or otherwise, parents may have rights to make a claim of disability discrimination.
 

Recommended reading 

Your guide to getting justice for all unlawfully excluded children (PDF). Ambitious about Autism (2017)