Young people suspended during secondary school are twice as likely to not achieve a level 3 qualification by age 19 and be out of education, employment and training by 24, new research has found.
However, researchers warned the findings show “strong associations” rather than “definitive causal effects” of suspensions as other factors, including limited opportunities due to lower GCSE results, attitudes towards learning and family support could have had an impact.
The Education Policy Institute tracked a cohort of 576,000 students who started year 7 in state schools in 2006 into their mid-20s. Researchers found that 16 per cent of pupils were suspended at least once in secondary school.
Compared to students who are not suspended, those suspended were 2.1 times as likely to not achieve level 3 qualifications by age 19, 1.6 times as likely to not attend university by age 24, and 2.0 times as likely to not be in sustained education, employment or training (NEET) at age 24.
In addition, suspended students were 2.5 times as likely to receive out-of-work benefits by age 24 and 2.7 times as likely to receive health-related benefits by age 24.
Today’s report builds on EPI research published in March which found suspended secondary school pupils are about a year behind their peers on average by the time they take their GCSEs and are less likely to pass crucial maths and English exams.
The think tank has made several policy recommendations, including that the Department for Education (DfE) should consider conducting a programme of work which sets out “how to best respond to behaviour that reflects the evidence on in-school and out-of-school drivers”.
Carlie Goldsmith, senior policy adviser at Impetus, said: “While it is not a surprise that suspended pupils get worse outcomes, we now know how much worse these outcomes are, and can put a number on the ‘employment grades gap’ for the first time.
“Suspensions are sometimes necessary, however, given the long-term consequences for both the individual and to wider society, supporting pupils who are struggling to engage in mainstream education, and in particular making sure they achieve crucial GCSEs, must be a priority for government.
“We should aim for lower exclusion levels not simply for the sake of it, but because it would be a sign of a more effective education system for pupils and teachers alike.”
In England, headteachers can suspend pupils for up to 45 days of the academic year. The suspension rate in secondary schools has been steadily increasing since 2013/14, reaching its highest point since public records began in 2022/23 with a rate of 9.33, equivalent to 933 suspensions per 10,000 pupils.
This is the latest year of data, but real-time absence data suggests that this trend is set to continue in 2023/24, EPI said.
The think tank’s research found that pupils with multiple suspensions have poorer outcomes in early adulthood and multiple suspensions tend to be “cumulatively associated with poor early adult outcomes”.
For example, students were 1.8 times more likely to not achieve a level 3 qualification by age 19 if they were suspended once, which increases to 2.4 times for those suspended five times, and 2.6 times if the learner was suspended ten times or more.
Pupils suspended ten or more times also appear to have just as poor, if not poorer, outcomes compared to those who experience permanent exclusion (see table below).
EPI said the DfE should develop the evidence base on what works to support pupils who experience multiple suspensions.
The think tank did however point out that factors contributing to suspensions, as well as suspensions themselves, may have influenced GCSE performance, which in turn is related to outcomes in adulthood.
“In other words, the association between suspension and outcomes in adulthood may be indirect, accounted for by lower GCSE grades which limit opportunities for higher study,” a spokesperson explained.
The report added there are other limitations to the research, including that researchers cannot distinguish between the impact of the behaviour leading to the suspension and the suspension itself. It is also possible that the “associations may still be related to unmeasured pupil factors (e.g. attitudes towards learning) and contextual factors (e.g. family support)”.
Nevertheless, Allen Joseph, EPI’s researcher in early years, inequalities and wellbeing, said that given the poor individual-level outcomes and wider societal costs identified in the research, it is “imperative” that schools, colleges, and wider services are “adequately resourced to address the circumstances and respond to the behaviour that resulted in the suspension”.
Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “This analysis highlights a critical issue – pupils with behavioural challenges serious enough to result in being suspended are significantly less likely to achieve positive outcomes in education and life. This is not only a personal tragedy for them but also a considerable challenge for schools.”
He added that “no school ever wishes to suspend a pupil” which is a measure taken “only as a last resort” and called for early intervention as it is “essential to prevent behavioural issues from escalating”.
A DfE spokesperson said: “The recent figures on school suspensions are shocking and show the massive scale of disruptive behaviour that has developed in schools across the country in recent years, harming the life chances of children.
“We are determined to get to grips with the causes of poor behaviour: we’ve already committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every secondary school, introducing free breakfast clubs in every primary school, and ensuring earlier intervention in mainstream schools for pupils with special needs.
“But we know poor behaviour can also be rooted in wider issues, which is why the government is developing an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty led by a taskforce co-chaired by the education secretary so that we can break down the barriers to opportunity.”
What’s the one thing money can’t buy?….Poverty.
The wealth divide has been growing for decades, alongside a global shift of wealth from West to BRICs. An army of spokespeople won’t fix that.
The headline is suggestive that the suspensions are linked to the students being NEET – this is patently bull and akin to gaslighting. Perhaps the research would be better placed if it looked into why students are suspended and excluded in the first place and lobby government departments to fix the underpinning social reasons rather than seem to continually point the finger at education as the reason why kids become baddies.
When kids turn up at primary unable to feed themselves, use toilets or in some cases are unable to speak, the problem is not with the school. Similarly, when kids turn up to college with no intention of engaging, causing disruption, bullying, drugs, criminal damage etc, it’s not the college’s fault when they are forced into suspension to protect others.
When research looks at school and college exclusions as part of a whole, that may be more useful than headlines inferring suspensions and exclusions are to blame.