
Rise in school exclusions in England including among children under six
The figures for the 2023-24 academic year revealed that the number of permanent exclusions leapt up by 16% compared with the year before, while the total number of suspension days rose by 21% to 955,000.
Four children out of every 100 received at least one suspension during the year, with more than 100,000 suspended for the equivalent of a week or longer.
Although the vast majority of suspensions and exclusions were in secondary schools, peaking at ages 13 to 14, the sanctions increased more rapidly in primary schools among children whose earliest education had been disrupted by the Covid pandemic and associated school closures.
The Department for Education data showed the number of suspensions in primary schools exceeded 100,000 for the first time on record, while 471 children aged six or younger were expelled.
Sophie Schmal, the director of Chance UK, a charity which supports young children at risk of exclusion, said: 'When you have children as young as five and six years old being permanently excluded from school then clearly something is going very wrong.
'Every day, we see children and families being let down by a system that is failing to support them early enough.
'We are also concerned that stripping away education, health and care plans (EHCPs) will leave more children at risk of exclusion and disengagement from school.
'The support and funding that the most vulnerable children require to thrive in a school setting needs to be a priority for this government and we cannot afford to let these children fall through the cracks. Early intervention has to mean early – we can't wait until these children are teenagers to tackle this.'
Lorraine Anderson, a family support manager with Chance UK in London, said: 'We have to acknowledge that Covid probably had an impact. These are children who were not socialised for a long time.
'It's really worrying. We are seeing more permanent exclusions in primary school and the statistics tell us that 90% of children excluded from primary school will not pass GCSEs in maths and English.'
Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: 'Schools work tirelessly to support pupils but they alone cannot address the causes and symptoms of poor behaviour. They need back-up in the shape of additional investment in vital services like social care, children's mental health, behaviour support teams and special educational needs provision, which have been reduced or failed to keep up with demand over the last decade.'
Stephen Morgan, the minister for early education, said: 'Every moment in the classroom counts – but with almost 1m suspensions in the 2023 academic year, the evidence is clear that this government's inheritance was classrooms in chaos, with swathes of the next generation cut off from the opportunity to get on in life.'
More than half of the 10,900 students excluded had special educational needs, including more than 1,000 with EHCPs, statutory agreements between families and local authorities for individual provision, which are under threat from the government's special needs reforms.
Jane (not her real name) has gone through numerous exclusions with her children who all have special needs. Her 13-year-old was first excluded in primary school. More exclusions followed, and he was finally diagnosed with ADHD.
'I would get a call asking me to come pick him up because he had been excluded again. And with every exclusion, the problem would grow deeper,' said Jane.
'We kept having to go to 'reintegration meetings' every time he was excluded … and then he would be sent home again a few days later. It was so frustrating, and I felt like no one was interested in giving him the support he needed to engage with school properly.
'He is now in his first year of secondary school, and things have gotten even worse. I feel like he now has that 'naughty child' label, and the exclusions just keep coming. He is missing so much school and being left with nothing to do and no meaningful support.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ministers condemn 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain will be forced to pay massive reparations over climate change
Ministers have condemned a 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain could be forced to pay massive reparations for climate change. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. The Tories have warned Attorney General Lord Hermer's 'ideological obsession' with international law means the government could follow the edict. But touring broadcast studios this morning, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insisted the UK should not 'apologise or pay reparations' for leading the industrial revolution. He told Times Radio: 'I think that's completely unreasonable and unworkable from a legal point of view. 'Whilst we should obviously take seriously our legacy, our history, the contribution that UK has made to the world on a number of areas, I think the industrial revolution was not a bad thing. 'The fact that we have a modern industrial society is a good thing. We led on that innovation that then has been transferred around the world. But I don't think it's anything to apologise for or pay reparations for.' Challenged that the UK had obeyed a similar advisory ruling on the status of the Chagos Islands, Mr Reynolds said that 'essential national security functions' had been at stake in that case. 'I think any argument that there should be reparations paid for British history and that should fall on the British people today... I think it's a flawed judgment in my view,' he added. Campaigners have hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. 'These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation,' he said. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'


The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Epping hotel anti-migrant protests were organised by members of Neo-Nazi groups
Members of one of the UK's biggest Neo-Nazi groups have been involved in organising anti-migrant protests outside a hotel in Essex, which has led to 10 people being arrested. Two members of the far-right group Homeland can be seen as the administrators of Facebook page Epping Says No, a Facebook page with 1,500 members where the protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping have been organised. The Homeland Party was formed as a splinter group to the neo-Nazi Patriotic Alternative in April 2023, and has been described as the largest fascist group in the UK by Hope Not Hate. Two members of the party have since called on their social media pages for a 'national call to action', as the government fears another summer of unrest similar to last year when nationwide disorder broke out after three girls were stabbed to death in Southport. Essex Police has issued a dispersal order in Epping which will be in place from 2pm on Thursday until 8am on Friday, and covers an area including the town centre, transport hubs and networks such as the Tube station. The order gives officers the power to direct anyone suspected of committing anti-social behaviour, or planning to do so, to leave the area or face arrest. Dozens of anti-immigration protesters also descended on the Britannia hotel in Canary Wharf on Wednesday, after reports circulated on social media that it had been earmarked to house migrants. It has not yet received any asylum seekers, while it has been reported that the Home Office has reserved more than 400 beds at the four-star hotel. Counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism have attended both Epping and Canary Wharf, with Essex Police forced to deny claims they had 'bussed' them to the demonstration on Sunday evening. Protests were first sparked outside the Bell Hotel nearly two weeks ago, after 38-year-old Ethiopian asylum seeker Hadush Kebatu was accused of sexually assaulting a schoolgirl within days of arriving in the UK on a small boat. He denies the charges. Chairperson of the Police Federation, Tiff Lynch, wrote in The Telegraph that the disorder was 'not just a troubling one-off', adding: 'It was a signal flare. A reminder of how little it takes for tensions to erupt and how ill-prepared we remain to deal with it.' She said that local commanders across the country are forced to choose between 'keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps'. Ms Lynch said: 'A summer of further unrest is not inevitable. But it becomes far more likely if we once again fail to prepare.'


Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU backs potential counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros of US goods
BRUSSELS, July 24 (Reuters) - The European Union's member countries voted on Thursday to approve counter-tariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods, which could be imposed should the bloc fail to reach a trade deal with Washington, EU diplomats said. The 27-nation bloc's executive European Commission had said on Wednesday its primary focus was to achieve a negotiated outcome with Washington to avert 30% U.S. tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump has said he will apply on August 1. The Commission said it would press on in parallel with plans for potential countermeasures, merging two packages of proposed tariffs of 21 billion euros and 72 billion euros into a single list and submitting this to EU members for approval. No countermeasures would enter force until August 7. So far the EU has held back from imposing any countermeasures, despite Trump's repeated announcements of tariffs, the broadest of which have been postponed. EU member states authorised the first package of countermeasures in April, but these were immediately suspended to allow time for negotiations. The EU and United States appear to be heading towards a possible trade deal, according to EU diplomats, which would result in a broad 15% tariff on EU goods imported into the U.S., mirroring a framework agreement Washington struck with Japan. Trump would still need to take any final decision. Under the outlines of the potential deal, the 15% rate could apply to sectors including cars and pharmaceuticals and would not be added to long-standing U.S. duties, which average just under 5%. There could also be concessions for sectors such as aircraft, lumber as well as some medicines and agricultural products, which would not face tariffs, diplomats said. Washington does not, however, appear willing to lower its 50% tariff on steel. ($1 = 0.8501 euros)