This research highlights the contested nature of illegal school exclusion and paucity of empirical research exploring exclusionary practices from the perspectives of Educational Psychologists (EPs) working with schools in England (Done et al. 2021a). These perspectives are important for understanding decision-making leading to such practices and, consequently, the key objectives of this second phase of research were 1) to further investigate the experience and perspectives of EPs in England on illegal school exclusion and 2) presentation of a data-informed draft framework for dialogue developed to support EPs to challenge exclusionary practices.

Despite the damaging outcomes of exclusionary practices for pupils and parents (Done et al. 2021b), opportunities have been limited for EPs to discuss varied forms of exclusion and illegal exclusionary practices and the implications for their professional practice and identities. Understanding the tensions leading to illegal school exclusion is crucial in order to suggest how such practices can be minimised or avoided. Beyond issues of legality, it is likely that the contentious nature of behavioural management and school cultures, and potentially negative impact on EP-school relationships inhibits professional dialogue, particularly where the services of EPs are ‘traded’ or purchased by schools (Done et al. 2022, forthcoming).

Our earlier research identified ‘hidden’ exclusionary practices that go unrecorded in official exclusion data. England’s national school inspectorate (Ofsted) defines illegal exclusion as ‘off-rolling’ and a ‘gaming’ of academic performance metrics involving ‘removing a pupil from the school roll without a formal, permanent exclusion or by encouraging a parent to remove their child from the school roll, when the removal is primarily in the interests of the school rather than in the best interests of the pupil’ (2019: 50).  However, exclusionary practice also includes: part-time timetables; sending pupils home to ‘cool off’; refusing admission giving inability to accommodate needs’ as the reason for non-admittance of children with ‘special’ educational or additional needs and/or disabilities (SEN/D); and advising that pupils are home-educated (Done & Knowler 2020a, 2020b, 2021; Done et al. 2021; Done, Knowler & Armstrong, 2021).

Pupils with SEN/D are disproportionally excluded or off rolled and disadvantaged pupils are similarly over-represented (Department for Education 2019; Ofsted 2019: 50) and increases in ‘elective’ home education are described as ‘inappropriate’ responses to pressure from schools (Office of the School Adjudicator 2018: 35). Formal exclusion, off rolling and non-admittance of pupils with SEN/D across the age range are also attributed to schools’ poor behavioural management  (p.50).

Objectives

Survey and interview data indicates varying levels of certainty amongst EPs around the legality of exclusionary practices within schools combined with high levels of concern about the consequences for pupils of all forms of exclusion, including widespread use of internal isolation facilities. Traded service status is recognised as complicating the EP-school relationship and EPs’ readiness to challenge school decision-making. The research objective was to trial a data-driven framework for dialogue as a professional resource for EPs to facilitate dialogue with client schools.

Research questions

 How do EPs understand the practice of off rolling?   

 What are the challenges surrounding off rolling and the professional impacts on EPs of involvement?  

How do EPs think off rolling might be avoided in England?

Can study data inform the design of a framework for dialogue that supports EPS to challenge exclusionary practices?

What do EPs say about the usefulness of this framework?

Conceptual framework

Traded service status is conceptualised as ‘bare’ educational psychology (Done et al. 2022), drawing on Agamben’s (1998) aspiration to community without identity. We also adapt Boyle’s (2019) two-fold ‘continuum thinking’ to underline the profoundly affective and material impact of exclusionary practices on children, including isolation (Done, Knowler & Armstrong 2021).

A qualitative interpretivist methodology was deployed and data was collected through an online questionnaire (n=65) piloted and then distributed to EPs at varied career stages nationally through practice and social media networks. Three questions were on demographics (roles, level of experience, and location) and 22 questions were designed to elicit views on illegal exclusions and EPs’ experiences of observing exclusionary practices in schools. Nine questions used vignettes to elicit views on differing exclusionary practices, asking whether and why they considered a scenario to be exclusionary (see Jenkins et al. 2020). Vignettes were designed to reflect the discourses acting upon schools, teachers, the wider education workforce and learners, and included scenarios that might be recognisable but also evoke affective responses. Vignette ‘quality’ was evaluated in terms of the relation between the known and unknown, comfort and dis-ease around the topics raised (Jenkins et al. 2020). Two final questions sought volunteers for a follow-up semi-structured interview on an online platform in order to elaborate on themes in their questionnaire responses and raise issues that were not covered. Given our specific interest in EPs’ experiences of exclusionary practices, an indicative topic guide was used to elicit information related to their specific context. Interviews were recorded and transcribed using MS Word. Data from both phases (n=65 and n=9 respectively) was analysed through a thematic content analysis by the research team. Follow-up interviews permitted fuller explanation of the research goals than is conventional on ethical grounds as the topic raised professional and ethical considerations not associated with online anonymous questionnaires. Further clarification of our strategies for protecting EPs identities and those of their schools was given where requested and potential participants were made aware of the interview schedule prior to interview. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke 2019) in this multi-method project (Hammond 2005) was followed by the data-informed design of a framework for dialogue addressing: tensions between professional values and governmental agendas (Done & Knowler 2020b; Foucault 1982; Hultqvist, Lindblad & Popkewitz 2018); quasi-commercialisation of EP services (Done et al. 2022); legislation and statutory guidance concerning exclusionary practices in schools; concerns about a broad range of exclusionary practices, legal and otherwise; and, crucially, supporting EPs to negotiate professional risks and begin to challenge practices that they consider to be damaging to pupils. Interview participants (n=9) are to be invited to feedback on the usefulness of this framework as a prelude to larger-scale research in 2023.

EPs are familiar with a range of exclusionary practices that can be difficult to reconcile with their professional identities and values, and that risk tensions in their relationships with schools. Interviews confirm regional variation in practices and within local authorities, and between multi-academy trusts (e.g. some MATs are organising informal ‘managed moves’ which are not monitored). Although at interview the interpersonal and relational skills of EPs were discussed in the context of raising ‘difficult’ issues with schools, it appears to be different models of service provision (i.e. non-traded) that increase the capacity of EPs to ask difficult questions in schools. Interviewees talked of decreasing transparency in inclusion and exclusion processes and how this makes it harder for EPs to intervene. Recommendations around the development of the legal literacy of EPs and changing attitudes towards ‘whistle blowing’ must be read accordingly. The danger that the framework for dialogue reproduces the individualisation associated with neoliberalising processes should be acknowledged. The fact that no examples of preventing or stopping exclusion were found in questionnaire or interview data, suggests perhaps that the pressures on schools are understood by EPs and that dialogue will only be effective if accompanied by fundamental shifts in the policy landscape. The framework for dialogue in this paper is presented as a tool for scaffolding difficult conversations between EPs and schools on exclusionary practices. We will outline the key dimensions for dialogue that make up the framework and share example prompts, topics for discussion, tools for reflection and tools for recording actions

Agamben, G. (1998). Homer sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Boyle, K. (2019) Me Too, Weinstein and feminism. Cham: Springer (Palgrave Pivot). Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health, 11(4): 589-597. Department for Education (2019) Timpson review of school exclusion. London: DfE. Done, E.J. & Knowler, H. (2020a) Painful invisibilities: Roll management or ‘off-rolling’ and professional identity. British Education Research Journal. 46(3): 516-531. Online 6 December. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3591 Done, E.J. & Knowler, H. (2020b) A tension between rationalities: “off-rolling” as gaming and the implications for head teachers and the inclusion agenda. Educational Review. Online 11 September. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1806785 Done, E.J., and Knowler, H. (2021) ‘Off-rolling’ and the art of visibility / invisibility: Exploring senior leaders’ views of ‘strategic’ school exclusion in England. British Education Research Journal. Online 4 March. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3709 Done, E.J., Knowler, H. & Armstrong, D. (2021). ‘Grey’ exclusions matter: Mapping illegal exclusionary practices and the implications for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities in England and Australia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. Online 24 August. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12539 Done, E.J., Knowler, H., Shield, W. & Bayton, H. (2021a) Educational psychologists’ perspectives on strategic and illegal exclusion in schools in England. Presented at the European Conference of Educational Research, 8 September 2021 (online). Done, E.J., Knowler, H., Warnes, E. & Pickett-Jones (2021b). Think piece on parents, ‘off-rolling’ and wavelength methodology: issues for SENCos. Support for Learning, 70(1): 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12339 Done, E.J., Knowler, H., Shield, W. & Baynton, H. (2022) Rocks and hard places: Exploring educational psychologists’ perspectives on ‘off rolling’ or illegal exclusionary practices in mainstream secondary schools in England. Educational Psychology Research and Practice, in press. Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power, Critical Inquiry, 8(Summer1982), 777–795.   Hammond, C. (2005) The wider benefits of adult learning: An illustration of the advantages of multi-method research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3): 239-255.   Hultqvist, E., Lindblad, S. & Popkewitz, T.S. (Eds.) (2018) Critical analyses of educational reforms in an era of transnational governance. Springer.   Jenkins N, Ritchie L, Quinn S. (2020) From reflection to diffraction: exploring the use of vignettes within post-humanist and multi-species research. Qualitative Research. Online 20 July. DOI:10.1177/1468794120920258 Ofsted (2019) Annual report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2017 / 2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofsted-annual-report-201718-education-childrens-services-and-skills Office of the Schools Adjudicator (2017) Annual report September 2017-August 2018, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/annual-report-of-the-chief-schools-adjudicator-for-england--