School Connection / Flagship analysis
Fewer exclusions were only the beginning: the evidence schools must now bring to reform
DfE has moved the exclusion debate from headline totals to three difficult parts of practice: internal suspension, reintegration after suspension and education during the first five days. Schools now have an opportunity, and a responsibility, to distinguish policy, provision and lived experience.
The answer in brief
The reform question
The Department for Education has opened a call for evidence on three parts of exclusion practice that national headline totals cannot resolve: internal suspension, reintegration support partnerships after suspension, and the work provided during the first five days of suspension or permanent exclusion. Responses are expected to use research, data and practical examples. That makes this a test of what schools can demonstrate, not simply what their policies say.1
The current statutory framework remains in force while policy is developed. Leaders should neither wait for reform before examining lost learning nor present proposals as settled duties. The immediate task is to build an honest evidence trail showing who is removed from ordinary learning, what education they receive, how they return and whether the pattern repeats.12
- Record internal suspension as lost access to ordinary learning, not merely as a behaviour event.
- Define reintegration by what changes after the pupil returns, not by whether a meeting took place.
- Separate current duties from reform proposals in policies, board papers and communications.
01 / 01
This is an evidence request, not a new rulebook
The call for evidence is intended to inform policy development and the statutory framework that may later underpin reform. It does not itself change the threshold for suspension, create a prescribed internal-suspension model or settle the form of a reintegration partnership. Schools should continue to use the current statutory guidance and describe any local improvement as their own practice unless and until government requirements change.12
That distinction matters editorially and operationally. Consultation can still justify action where it exposes a known evidence gap. A school that cannot quantify internal removal, explain the education provided or show what changed after return is poorly placed to judge its own practice or contribute useful evidence to national reform.
02 / 02
Make internal suspension visible without pretending every removal is equivalent
National exclusion statistics capture formal suspensions and permanent exclusions; they do not provide a complete account of pupils educated away from their normal classroom inside school. Local records should therefore identify duration, reason, location, supervision, curriculum access and repeat use. A ten-minute restorative reset and several days in an isolation room should not disappear into one undifferentiated category.3
The purpose is not to outlaw every internal response. It is to see whether removal is proportionate, whether pupils continue to receive suitable education, and whether particular groups or individual pupils experience it repeatedly. Boards need denominators and repeat-pupil analysis, not a single total that can fall while lost learning becomes more concentrated.
03 / 03
A return to the timetable is not yet reintegration
A reintegration meeting can create a useful point of accountability, but attendance at a meeting does not show that the conditions driving suspension have changed. The record should connect the pupil's return with agreed teaching, pastoral, SEND, safeguarding or family actions; name the adults responsible; and set a review point soon enough to prevent another failure becoming inevitable.
The proposed focus on support partnerships raises questions beyond one school. Leaders should document where external services, alternative provision, local authorities or other schools become involved, what information can lawfully be shared, who retains educational responsibility and what happens when support is delayed. A partnership without an owner can add another handoff while leaving the pupil's experience unchanged.1
04 / 04
Judge first-five-day work by education received, not work dispatched
The call for evidence specifically includes schoolwork during the first five days. The minimum useful record is therefore more than a timestamp showing that material was emailed. Schools should be able to explain whether work was accessible, appropriately sequenced, available in the required format, supported where needed, completed and reviewed on return. Digital access and SEND adjustments belong in that account.1
This is also a curriculum-continuity issue. Subject leaders need a practicable method for setting work that follows current learning rather than a generic pack. Pastoral and attendance teams need to know when non-engagement indicates an access problem, welfare concern or need for contact. The process should protect education without turning suspension into remote schooling by assumption.
05 / 05
Build one evidence pack that can support governance and reform
Bring together formal suspension, internal removal, first-five-day provision, reintegration action and repeat-event data. Segment carefully by relevant pupil characteristics, but suppress or restrict small and identifiable groups. Add pupil, family and staff experience through proportionate qualitative evidence. The result should allow leaders to distinguish prevalence, concentration, access to education and the effectiveness of follow-up.
Schools responding to DfE should state scope, time period, definitions and limitations. Local practice examples become more useful when they also report implementation burden and unintended consequences. The strongest contribution will not claim that one approach solved exclusion; it will show what was attempted, for whom, under what conditions and what evidence changed the next decision.1
Leadership questions
Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.
Board test
Can we quantify formal suspension, internal removal and repeat loss of classroom time without merging unlike events?
Board test
What education do pupils actually receive during the first five days, and how do we know it was accessible?
Board test
Which action after reintegration is owned, reviewed and changed if suspension repeats?
Evidence boundary
What this analysis does not prove.
- The 15 October publication is an open call for evidence. The three reform areas are not presented as final statutory requirements.
- National exclusion statistics do not measure all internal removals and cannot explain the cause or quality of an individual school's practice.
- Suggested records and controls are School Connection analysis; schools must follow current statutory guidance and data-protection requirements.
What we are monitoring next
Publication is the beginning of the watch.
- The call-for-evidence outcome, draft statutory provisions, implementation timetable, definitions for internal suspension and any funded or prescribed reintegration model.
Approved public intelligence
What the live evidence is showing now.
School Connection continues to monitor inclusion, attendance & safeguarding evidence. New machine-detected signals remain private editorial candidates until a human editor investigates and approves them for publication.
This panel reads only the editor-approved School Connection public feed. It never exposes raw Observatory records, private candidates, contacts, commercial opportunities or internal scores.
Continue the evidence trail
How this develops our earlier coverage
Sources and methodology
Evidence used in this analysis
School Connection links to the primary source behind each material claim. Source status, period and limitations are stated so readers can reproduce the evidence trail.
- 01
Department for Education · Published 15 October 2026; reviewed 16 October 2026
School exclusion reform
The controlling page for the open call for evidence. It identifies three areas for policy development; it does not establish final requirements. - 02
Department for Education · Current statutory guidance reviewed 16 October 2026
School suspensions and permanent exclusions
The current legal and procedural framework. Schools must continue to follow the guidance in force while reform is developed. - 03
Department for Education · Published 6 August 2026; reviewed 16 October 2026
Suspensions and permanent exclusions in England: 2024 to 2025
Accredited national statistics. Falling totals do not measure internal suspension or establish the quality of education and reintegration experienced by an individual pupil.