Herts county councillors raise concerns about the expulsion of SEND children from schools
Children with special educational needs are more likely to face permanent exclusion from Hertfordshire schools than other pupils.
According to the latest available data, heads took steps to expel 195 pupils in the first two terms of this academic year (2024/25).
That’s equivalent to 0.1% of the overall school population in Hertfordshire.
However, among those Hertfordshire students with EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans), there were 46 who faced permanent exclusion, equivalent to 0.5%.
That makes children with an EHCP five times more likely to be threatened with permanent exclusion.
The trend was highlighted at a meeting of the county council’s education, SEND and inclusion cabinet panel on Friday (June 6).
Presenting the data, strategic lead for intelligence and insight David Butcher said that the county had a “relatively low permanent exclusion rate, compared to the national position”.
But he suggested that it was “relatively high in terms of children with EHCPs being excluded”.
Green Party Cllr Kirsty Taylor-Moran said it was “quite alarming how much more likely it is for a child with an EHCP to be permanently excluded”.
Suggesting that it “shouldn’t be happening at all”, she asked whether it reflected a lack of placements available for them to be moved to.
Director of education Tony Fitzpatrick said councillors were right to “call out” the exclusion rate for children with EHCPs.
He said the council was working hard “on how we can find suitable ways of working with our schools about children with additional needs.
“A lot of work to do, but we’re making inroads into it,” he said.
The data presented to councillors focused on the ‘notifications of permanent exclusion’ made to the county council by schools – the first stage of the formal exclusion process.
In almost a third of these cases (63), the data shows the child was either reinstated or the exclusion cancelled before the permanent exclusion was registered.
However, it does not detail how many of the exclusions that were cancelled related to children with EHCPs.
Conservative Cllr Paula Hiscocks also expressed concern about the number of primary-aged pupils facing permanent exclusion.
According to the 2024/25 data, the county council received 27 notifications of permanent exclusion from primary schools, including one relating to a child in Reception.
Reasons given for notification of permanent exclusion – in primary and secondary schools – included physical assault, verbal abuse or damage.
They also included the use or threat with a weapon or prohibited item, sexual misconduct, verbal abuse, inappropriate use of social media or racial abuse.
Cllr Hiscocks questioned which of those actions such young children could have taken.
She stressed the impact the stigma of exclusion and the move away from their area could have on them, separating them from siblings or children living close to their homes.
Requesting greater detail, she said: “The thing that really worries me here is the number of primary school children excluded. I mean, Reception?
“And I looked at the list of things that they are excluded for, and I thought about four, five, and six-year-olds.
“I don’t think they could do any of those at that age, or cause physical damage or whatever when they are so little.”
According to the data, the most frequent reason for notification of permanent exclusion is a physical assault against a pupil (41), followed by the use or threat of an offensive weapon or prohibited item (22) and physical assault against an adult (21).
Seventeen incidents were drug or alcohol-related, and 11 were for verbal abuse against an adult.
Other reasons were listed as damage (6), sexual misconduct (3), verbal abuse against a pupil (2), inappropriate use of social media (1) and racial abuse (1).
According to the data, at the same point in the academic year last year (2023/24) the council had been notified of 233 permanent exclusions – 39 more than the latest data for 24/25.
Mr Butcher accepted that permanent exclusion was “a really significant life event” for any child or young person, stressing that there is no headteacher who decides to permanently exclude lightly.
Director of education Tony Fitzpatrick said permanent exclusion was “an absolute last resort for a headteacher”.
He said that following notification to the local authority, there would be engagement between the school parents and the authority in the hope that a solution could be found.
“Sometimes the solution is that we can put in some different provision that the school can then access for that child,” he said.
“Sometimes – and quite often, as you can see from the data – the school is willing to rescind the exclusion.
“The child remains on the roll of the school, which is always the best thing because the school has eyes on the child.
“And the school can work with the local authority to find an alternative provision, which might be a complete provision somewhere else but still be on the roll of the school. Or it might be that it is a blended provision and it just supports that child.
“Sometimes it is very difficult if the child has done something that it is untenable for that child to remain in that school.”