School Discipline

School must have a disciplinary regime which promotes good behaviour and includes sanctions for breach of the school’s own code. Schools have a right to set rules in relation to conduct both inside and outside the school. Guidance encourages schools to involve children and parents in the development of the school’s disciplinary policies.

Exclusions should only be used in the most extreme circumstances and as a measure of last resort. In 2006 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) issued detailed guidance on exclusions.

Exclusions can be for one or more fixed period but cannot exceed 45 days in one school year, unless it is a permanent exclusion. The head teacher must inform the child’s parents of the exclusion and must also inform the child and parents of the reason for the exclusion, and the right of appeal to the school governors or the LEA. If a child is made to leave school other than in accordance with the proper procedure that practice is likely to constitute an unofficial (and therefore unlawful) exclusion.

The parents of a child who has been excluded have a right of appeal to the school governors. The governors can order the headmaster to reinstate a child who has been excluded. The parents of a student who has been permanently excluded and is not reinstated by the Governors can take a further appeal to an independent panel convened by the local authority. .

The right of appeal against exclusion vests in the parents, not in the child. While DfES guidance now recognises the desirability of a child’s participation in the process, it remains an issue of concern that a child has no legal right to be heard in an exclusion process, nor to appeal themselves against a decision to exclude.

It is important to note that the safeguards above relate to maintained schools. City Academies and Technology Colleges have individual mechanisms by which exclusions can be appealed. These are set out in the school’s funding agreement and may not provide for a fully independent appeal. The DfES guidance purports not to apply to such schools, which typically exclude significantly more students than the national average would suggest.

The extent to which such schools are required to offer an independent appeal against exclusion, and whether such schools are ‘public authorities’ for the purposes of the Human Rights Act have yet to be determined.

In 2006 the House of Lords considered the right to education (Protocol 1 Article 2 of the ECHR) in relation to exclusion decisions. They concluded that the ECHR does not confer a right to be educated at a particular school, but a right not to be denied access to the general level of educational provision available. In the case of Begum, which concerned a Muslim school girl who was not permitted to wear the jilbab, the House of Lords found (by majority) that her right to manifest her religion under Art 9 ECHR had not been subject to interference.

Since September 2007 LEAs are under a duty to make arrangements for the provision of full–time education for excluded children from the sixth day of their exclusion.

However, during the first five days of any exclusion an excluded child will not be permitted in any public place during school hours. The result of this is that a child will be under effective ‘house arrest’ during this time; they are not permitted to enter any public place, even under parental supervision.

Back to to top