Excluded lives: a ‘home-international’ comparison of school exclusion

Full text

Excluded Lives: A ‘Home-International’ Comparison of School Exclusion
Harry Daniels and Ian Thompson, Department of Education, University of Oxford
Introduction
This Special Issue reports on some of the findings from our ESRC funded project
The Political Economies of School Exclusion Across the UK and their Consequences
(2019-2024) relating to historical and cultural reasons underpinning the contrasting
policy and practices of disciplinary school exclusion in the UK. School exclusion, in
our definition, refers to both the official statistics on permanent exclusions and
temporary suspensions as well as the unofficial and sometimes illegal practices that
result in a child or young person missing out on education. UNESCO (2012) has
reported on the worldwide phenomenon of a wide variety of forms of exclusion from
education linked to social and economic inequality. However, disciplinary school
exclusion as a response to perceived poor student behaviour is notoriously hard to
measure on a comparative basis due to differences in terminology, practice, and
official recording of exclusions (Valdebenito et al. 2019).
Perhaps because of neo-liberal and neo-conservative accountancy measures, recent
comparative statistics and academic studies are most easy to find from Australia, the
United ingdom (England in particular) and the USA (e.g. Armstrong,2018; Graham et
al, 2019; Welsh and Little, 2018). . These countries all have devolved regional
systems of education making within country comparisons possible and cross-country
comparisons potentially fruitful despite some significant differences between the
extent and quality of disaggregated data. For example, all three states show
disproportional rates of exclusion based on demographic factors such as race,
poverty, special educational need and gender. Nevertheless, rates of exclusion and
suspension are also unevenly distributed across the geography of each state (Cole
et al. 2019; Leung-Gagné et al. 2022; Tippett et al., 2022). For example, in 2017-18
in the USA 15% of students in the federal states of Mississippi, South Carolina, and
Washington, DC received at least one out-of-school suspension, three times the rate
California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts (5%) and five times the rate in Utah
(3%). Table 1 shows the variation in numbers and rates of exclusions and
suspensions across the UK jurisdictions in 2018/19.
Year 2018/19
Fixed Term
Exclusions
(FEX)
Permanent
Exclusions
(PEX)
School
Population
% of School
Population
England
438,265
7894
8,196,605
FEX: 5.36%
PEX: 0.1%
Northern
Ireland
4549
30
322,721
FEX: 1.4%
PEX: **

Scotland
14987
3
697,989
FEX: 2.1%
PEX: **
Wales
19071
246
434,655
FEX: 4.3%
PEX: 0.06%
Table 1: A comparison of school exclusions across the UK in 2018/19
These variations suggest the importance of local policy contexts around exclusions
and behaviour at jurisdiction and school levels. Equally, educational policies which
are responsible for shaping the availability of educational opportunities (or not) also
have origins and impacts that are differentiated at the local and regional levels. In the
UK, this is particularly evident in the context of administrative devolution in Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but it is also true in the context of the increasing
decentralisation of educational decision-making in England from the national state to
the school level. To study the influence of context and education policy at these
various geographical scales, the Excluded Lives study adopted the ‘home
international’ comparison approach (Raffe & Byrne, 2005) to the analysis of both
quantitative and qualitative data from across the UK. Whilst there are some
differences in the social and economic conditions of students and schools in each
jurisdiction these are significantly less marked than differences in full international
comparisons. The main objectives of this research were to develop multi-disciplinary
understandings of the very different UK landscapes of political economies of school
exclusion and the experiences, consequences and costs for those involved in the
process. The negative educational effects of exclusion are well documented and our
research has also highlighted long term detrimental consequences for exclusion on
both health (Obsuth et al., 2023) and employment (Madia et al., 2022).
This research project stemmed from the longstanding work of the Excluded Lives
group established in Oxford in 2014 which has highlighted great differences in the
rates of permanent school exclusion in different parts of the UK. The research has
been conducted during the pandemic which has exacerbated social and educational
inequalities and put extreme pressures on schools and young people (Daniels,
Thompson and Emery, 2023). Overall numbers of permanent exclusions rose rapidly
in England before the Covid-19 pandemic but remained relatively low in Northern
Ireland and Wales and fell dramatically in Scotland (Cole et al., 2019; McCluskey et
al., 2019). The four jurisdictions of the UK share a national government and
economy but largely as a result of devolution have separate education systems and
political economies of school exclusions that are shaped by different educational
histories and cultures. Our research involved a large number of academics across
five UK universities (Cardiff, Edinburgh, LSE, Oxford and Queen’s Belfast) working
from different disciplinary backgrounds and from a range of theoretical perspectives.
The project also engaged with Young People’s Advisory Groups and a range of
stakeholders and experts though both our Knowledge Exchange and Advisory

boards. The Excluded Lives project was designed to try to capture the complexity of
multiple perspectives on exclusion. Members of the team were drawn from the
disciplines of education, criminology, psychiatry, psychology, law, human geography,
sociology and economics. This multidisciplinary team studied the political economies
of multidisciplinary practices involving exclusion in the four jurisdictions of the UK.
Members of the multidisciplinary Excluded Lives team have used a range of
theoretical perspectives across the project, as outlined in the article summaries at
the end of this article, but in this editorial we adopt a cultural historical theoretical
lens in order to develop an understanding of systemic contradictions that have led to
differential rates of school exclusion across the United Kingdom.
With regard to school exclusion the education systems are markedly different across
the four UK jurisdictions, and our research has illustrated the ways in which the
different cultures and understandings of inclusion have influenced policy and how
this is interpreted in the practices of schools. In this introductory paper, following
Slee (2019), we argue that in education in England, policy discourse has tended to
individualise reasons for exclusion rather than develop an understanding of
exclusion in the wider context of education, social policy and the law. Our work has
assumed that the policy and practice of school exclusion cannot be treated as
separate from the general welfare and education systems. We argue that the
challenge is to re-imagine the histories and cultures of the political economies of
exclusion across the UK in such a way that we can ‘surface the invisible work’ of
national and local contexts on practices of marginalisation that lead to large numbers
of young people missing out on the schooling to which they are entitled.
We have previously pointed out (Daniels, Thompson and Tawell, 2019; Thompson,
Tawell and Daniels, 2021) that policy reforms across the UK jurisdictions have been
underpinned by dual-commitments to school accountability for the progress of their
students, and the inclusion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, with
special needs and disabilities. However, Ball (2003) and Connell (2009) have drawn
attention to the contradictions and tensions that arise from promoting practices of
inclusion in schools whilst at the same time prioritising mean examination
performance through high-stakes testing. They argued that the performative
professionalism that arises in the kind of competitive practices that are often found in
systems with high levels of accountability can undermine the capacity of
professionals to meet the needs of disadvantaged social groups. In the context of
schools, those students who do not, or cannot, follow the rules (Lloyd 2008) can
become ‘collateral casualties’ (Bauman 2004) of the pressures of performativity (Ball,
2003) and end up being marginalised and excluded (Slee 2012). Slee (2019) argued
that the policy pressures on schools to perform mean that students ‘are reduced to
being bearers of results and competitive individualism is anointed as the ethical
framework for twenty-first century schooling’ (p.913). At the same time, pressures in
school budgets means that access to financial and professional support for meeting

additional needs is highly constrained (Marsh 2015). The politics and policies of
central UK government austerity measures have affected each jurisdiction, but it is
the culture of what Parsons (2005) described as the will to punish children and
young people who do not conform to the norm that has become comparatively more
extreme in England since devolution.
Our research has shown that whilst these contradictory pressures exist in all four
jurisdictions they are mediated by historical and cultural practices at government,
local authority and school level. England is the jurisdiction where the pressures on
schools to perform most outweighs commitments to inclusion. In the last full pre-
pandemic exclusion figures for the school year 2018-19, whilst England permanently
excluded almost 8.000 students, Scotland only excluded three (figures in Northern
Ireland and Wales were also lower than England). These figures are reflected in the
language used in policy documents around exclusion. In Scotland the focus is on
relationships whereas in England the emphasis is on the behaviour of individual
students and headteachers’ right to exclude. Yet even with the highest excluding
jurisdiction of England there is huge variation and there are schools that have ‘gone
against the grain’ who do not routinely exclude even though they may ‘draw from the
same disadvantaged and troubled communities’ as other high excluding schools
(Slee, 2012, pp. 905-906). School culture is an important factor for both
collaborative practices amongst professionals to support disadvantaged students
(Ortega et al. 2019) and the extent to which schools include or exclude these same
students (Slee, 2012. 2019). This complex picture of the landscapes of exclusion
points to the need to theorise the different political economies of school exclusion
across the UK.
Defining the Political Economies of Disciplinary School Exclusion
Our project has conducted a ‘home international’ comparison of the four UK
jurisdictions but there are many complexities involved in this sort of work. For
example, there are differences in both language use around exclusion and the
sources, types and frequency of reporting of available data. There are relatively
close links between the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and
Wales, local authorities and the educational community (although the Northern
Ireland Assembly was suspended 2002-07, 2017-20 and 2022-24). This is much less
the case in England partly due to the fragmented and complex landscape of different
governance types of state funded schools. Table 2 and 3 demonstrate the number of
education authorities and range of types of state funded secondary schools across
the UK.
Responsible authority
Number
England
Local Education Authority
152

Northern
Ireland
Education Authority
1
Scotland
Scottish Local Authority
32
Wales
Councils of counties and county boroughs
22
Table 2: Responsible authorities for education across the UK
England
Maintained Schools
Academies
Academy and Multi-Academy Trusts
Free Schools
Grammar Schools
City Technology Colleges
Faith Schools
Special Schools (maintained and
academies)
Northern Ireland
Controlled Schools
Catholic Maintained Schools
Voluntary Grammar Schools
Integrated Schools
Irish-medium Schools
Maintained Special Schools
Scotland
Local Schools
Denominational Schools
Gaelic Education
Special Schools
Wales
Maintained Schools
Community Schools
Voluntary Controlled Schools
Voluntary Aided Schools
Foundation Schools
Welsh Schools
Special Schools
Table 3; Main types of schools in jurisdictions
Ball (2018) has argued that the state education system in England is in a state of
disarray and points to the huge range of categories of state funded schools aligned
to either multi-academy trusts or local authorities. In the English system, academies,
academy and multi-academy trusts, free schools city technology colleges and some
faith and special schools are funded directly by the UK government rather than
through local authorities. This complicates the political economy of schooling.
The term political economy is often defined within the social sciences as an
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary focus on the complex societal relationships
between governments, public policy, the economy, and individuals. Ashurst and
Venn (2014) located the roots of a political economy of exclusion in England and
Wales in 19th century social and educational policy towards the punishment of
perceived disruptive behaviour in schools that has consistently marginalised children
living in poverty. The different recent trajectory of Scotland’s record of almost

eradicating permanent school exclusions suggests the importance of both culture
and history in relation to the political economy of the policy and practice in schools.
Mosco’s (2009) definition of political economy is helpful here as it focusses on the
understanding of a particular sort of social relations.
One can think about political economy as the study of the social relations,
particularly the power relations, that mutually constitute the production,
distribution, and consumption of resources……But political economy takes
this a step further because it asks us to concentrate on a specific set of social
relations organized around power or the ability to control other people,
processes, and things, even in the face of resistance. (Mosco, 2009, p.22)
In our research into differential rates of school exclusion across the UK we have
looked at the landscapes, experiences and costs of exclusion to understand the
social and power dynamics involved in removing a child or young person from a
school. In this sense, exclusion – both official and ‘hidden’ – can be seen as part of a
political economy of schooling through which institutions seek to manage students’
disruptive behaviour in the context of increasing levels of accountability, high stakes
testing and the proliferation of ‘alternative’ forms of provision to which ‘troublesome’
students can be outsourced. As Connell (1993) contends, education itself is the
progenitor and reproducer of these unequal social conditions and processes rather
than the victim of external factors. Slee (2019) proposed that education itself can do
much to reset the interplay of forces that result in exclusion through an inclusive
education framework. However, he also recognised that this places a considerable
demand on a system that has been corroded through many years of stringent policy
demands.
Our findings from our research with local authorities, schools and agencies show that
the official school exclusion figures do not account for many informal and illegal
forms of exclusion that occur in all jurisdictions. In England in particular, there are
tensions between the pressure on schools to perform academically and the need to
make adequate provision for children and young people from disadvantaged social
groups. The articles in the Special Issue report on the ways that school leaders and
other professionals have interpreted jurisdictional government policy in their own
contexts and the consequences for marginalised pupils.
We argue that institutions such as schools and services should be understood as
playing a central role in the production and maintenance of social order and in the
allocation of services and resources. We also suggest that policy discourse has largely
ignored the everyday ‘maintenance actions’ that work to ensure that the social
relations of institutions continue to ‘repair’ minor misdemeanours to prevent more
serious incidents. In times of challenge and limited resources questions arise as to

what aspects of an institution can be repaired or maintained and who become
collateral casualties. Our cultural historical theoretical framework builds on these ideas
and helps us to interrogate and provide a more nuanced understanding of the ways in
which different policy configurations influence school exclusion decisions. Our claim is
that the findings from our project provide insight into how professional action is shaped
by multiple, and often unaligned, national policy frameworks re-enacted or
recontextualised in local settings and enable us to explore how ‘perverse incentives’
created by conflicting policy motives make an impact on operational practice. In this
way we intend to make both theoretical and empirical contributions to this highly
contested field.
The complexity of our field of study presents significant methodological and
theoretical challenges in no small part because the population of young people who
are excluded or are at risk of exclusion is so diverse. In a review for the English
government’s ministry, the Department for Education, Graham et al. (2019)
suggested that those who are most vulnerable face the most complex layers of
disadvantage in practices of disciplinary school exclusion. In a commentary on the all
too prevalent racial disproportionality in punishment and discipline in the schools in
the USA, Bal (2017) argued that understanding its multidimensional nature requires
a sophisticated perspective on the specific contexts in which these complex
phenomena are enacted. Ko, Bal and Alfredo (2023) added that systemic
contradictions in US educational systems compound racial disproportionality in
school discipline outcomes.
It is also the case that attention should not be constrained to a focus on those who
are excluded. As Perry and Morris (2014) have argued, schools with high rates of
exclusion seem also to have a detrimental effect on all of their students whether they
have been excluded or not. Jabbari and Johnson (2023) have recently shown that
even the least severe forms of exclusionary discipline (in this case in-school
suspensions) are associated with negative effects for all students in high excluding
schools. As Ko et al. (2022) stated:
In short, an exclusionary discipline system designed to maintain a safe
learning environment pushes out students in need of support and creates a
negative school climate for all students and adults in schools. (Ko et al. 2022,
p.4)
This would appear to contradict the popular argument that exclusion makes a school
safer and generally better for those not excluded. Taken together with the suggestion
from Rosenbaum (2020) of a causal link between temporary school exclusions (in
the USA) and criminal justice outcomes after 12 years then the case for any benefits
from exclusion would appear to be very weak.

Multiple Perspectives on School Exclusion
Our research has suggested that there appear to be other effects of exclusion which
should constitute a cause for concern. Obsuth et al., (2017) suggest that exclusion
erodes senses of fairness, belonging to school and being heard or seen by those
who are in roles of authority. In addition, Dupper et al. (2009) suggested that for
those who do not feel part of a school, exclusion is seen as an additional holiday
sanctioned by the school. So, whilst exclusion may not be seen as fair by some
students and their families it also may well not be construed as in any way
purposeful.. These findings and many others not only raise questions about the
effectiveness of exclusion but also point to the need for a wide focus from multiple
perspectives if it is to be understood and if the much vaunted joined up solutions are
to be achieved.
The term ‘joined up’ solutions has been associated with a multitude of forms of
multiagency professional working. This form of practice is often cited as a key part of
multi-professional activity and actions designed to prevent exclusions or to mitigate
their effects. An often confusing terminology has emerged in order to try and to
describe the collaborative approaches required: Lloyd et al. (2001) provide some
helpful working definitions which include:
Interagency working: more than one agency working together in a planned
and formal way, rather than simply through informal networking (although the
latter may support and develop the former). This can be at strategic or
operational level.
Multiagency working: more than one agency working with a client but not
necessarily jointly. Multiagency working may be prompted by joint planning or
simply be a form of replication, resulting from a lack of proper interagency co-
ordination. As with interagency operation, it may be concurrent or sequential.
In actuality, the terms ‘interagency’ and ‘multiagency’ (in its planned sense)
are often used interchangeably.
Joined-up working, policy or thinking refers to deliberately conceptualised and
co-ordinated planning, which takes account of multiple policies and varying
agency practices. This has become totemic in current UK social policy.
Multiprofessional working which involves staff from different professional
backgrounds working together Lloyd et al (2001) p.3
Studies of multiagency professional work such as Edwards et al. (2009) have shown
that the likelihood of successful practice emerging is enhanced when participants
consciously set out to learn from each other and collaborate in the development of
new ways of working that may not have existed in the past. Engeström (2008) coined
the term ‘knotworking’ to describe the ways in which various forms of knowledge
may be tied and untied by the various actors within dynamic and changing activity

systems. It is our argument that if these collaborative practices fail, and the objects
of different forms of professional practice are not recognised and aligned, then the
likelihood of perverse and contradictory incentives arising are increased and the
possibilities of beneficial outcomes are decreased. In such situations, these perverse
incentives and practices assume the proportions of an economy in which relations
between the different elements of that economy enter a complex set of political
relations formed of contestation, denial and subversion that serve to exclude those
who do not fit in.
The Special Issue
The findings from our project, as illustrated by the seven papers in this Special Issue,
provide insights into how professional action is shaped by multiple, and often
unaligned, national policy frameworks re-enacted or recontextualised in both national
and local settings. These insights enable us to explore how ‘perverse incentives’
created by conflicting policy motives are resolved in practice.
The first paper by Gillean McCluskey, Jemma Bridgeman, Gavin Duffy, Sally Power,
Gareth Robinson, Alice Tawell, Annie Taylor and Ian Thompson represents the
cross-jurisdictional focus of Excluded Lives in exploring disparities in rates of
exclusion across the UK by focusing on the four distinct policy frameworks around
the issue of school exclusion. The article looks the roles of policy drivers and levers
through a social justice informed theoretical lens. The findings point to a marked
unity of purpose within jurisdictional-level policy in terms of stated aims of inclusion
and reducing exclusion, and a marked divergence in policy between England on the
one hand, and the other three jurisdictions on the other. The results suggest that
English policy guidance over-emphasises legal processes and protections for
professionals, while under-estimating the value and importance of prevention, ethos
building, mitigations, and an evidence-based commitment to challenging inequalities.
Kyann Zhang, Alice Tawell and Sara Evans-Lacko present a case study analysis on
the economic costs of school exclusions. This study provides a snapshot of the
experience of exclusion and associated costs in different contexts across the UK and
highlights the variation in costs depending on circumstances. A secondary finding is
the areas in which data is lacking, and the authors provide recommendations for
where this needs to be urgently rectified to improve the understanding of the
economic impacts of school exclusion to inform policy more effectively.
Annie Taylor and Gillean McCluskey use the sociological concepts of dimensions of
purpose and stability in order explore the range and scope of ‘alternative provision’ in
two local authorities in Scotland and reflects on the quality and purpose of alternative
forms of educational provision, including consideration of the grey areas between
what constitutes mainstream and ‘alternative’ provision.

Sally Power, Jemma Bridgeman and Chris Taylor contrast pupil and professional
narrative accounts of the causes of school exclusion. They draw on Foucault’s
concept of ‘regimes of truth’ and Becker’s (1967) ‘hierarchy of credibility’ in order to
understand an apparent mismatch between teachers’ and pupils’ perspectives on
exclusion. Using data from interviews in Wales, the article suggests that more
attention needs to be paid to pupils’ perspectives on exclusion.
Jill Porter and Alice Tawell draw on interview data from special educational needs
coordinators (SENCOs) working in 12 schools across England to explore the ways in
which the concepts of risk and vulnerability to exclusion are understood from a
SEND perspective and how this informs the types of responses and interventions
provided by SENCOs to meet the needs of young people at risk of exclusion. They
deploy an Activity Theory informed lens to the analysis in order to understand the
ways that people act in context,
Foteini Tseliou, Chris Taylor and Sally Power use data from a single population
cohort of all pupils in maintained schools in Wales to show the frequency of formal
school exclusions and ways in which these vary over time. They develop a record-
linkage methodology in order to develop a longitudinal understanding of the
trajectories of pupils in terms of school exclusion and educational attainment. They
identify five main exclusion trajectories and show the differential impact of these
exclusion trajectories on later educational outcomes.
Finally, Gavin Duffy, Tony Gallagher, Gareth Robinson, Michelle Templeton and
Laura Lundy draw on Mosco’s (2009) theoretical framing of the concept of political
economy in order to explore the perspectives of Northern Irish school principals and
teachers in secondary schools and professionals responsible for alternative
provision. The paper highlights the complex political economy of school exclusion in
Northern Ireland through an exploration of the political and resource constraints in
the NI system and the use of informal forms of school exclusion.
We have argued during the course of this project that evidence both on what
constitutes exclusion and on the effectiveness of preventative measures needs to
focus on both context and practices and their cultural historical origins (Daniels,
Porter and Thompson, 2022). This Special Issue provides a contribution to this
endeavour. The articles taken together provide evidence of both divergence policy
and practice in school exclusions across the UK and convergence in the complex
use of informal forms of school exclusion, longstanding and continued
disproportionality of some groups, and negative experiences for all concerned in the
process of exclusion. The language of deficit has tenacity across jurisdictions and
over time. The different types of political economies of school exclusion is born out in
policies that may to some extent explain the disparities in rates of formal exclusion
across the UK and which may have negative unintended consequences. Context

matters in terms of the professional discourse and ethos adopted by school leaders
and staff.
References
Armstrong, D. (2018) Addressing the wicked problem of behaviour in
schools, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22:9, 997-1013,
Ashurst, F., & Venn, C. (2014). Inequality, poverty and school exclusion: A political
economy of school exclusion. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bal, A. (2017). System of disability. Critical Education, 8(6), 1–27.
Ball, S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Ed.
Policy, 18: 215–228.
Bauman, Z. (2004) Wasted lives: Modernity and its outcasts. Polity Press.
Cole, T., McCluskey, G., Daniels, H., Thompson, I. and Tawell, A. (2019) Factors
associated with high and low levels of school exclusions: comparing the English and
wider UK experience. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 24(4): 374-390.
Connell, R. (1993). Schools and social justice. Temple University Press.
Connell, R. (2009) Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of
teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50: 213–229.
Daniels, H., Thompson, I. and Tawell, A. (2019) After Warnock: The effects of
perverse incentives in policies in England for students with special educational
needs. Frontiers in Education, 4: 51-62.
Daniels, H., Thompson, I and Emery, H. (2023) Difference and School Exclusion in a
Time of COVID-19. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Published online
27.10.23
Daniels, H., Porter, J. and Thompson, I. (2022) What counts as evidence in the
understanding of school exclusions? Frontiers in Education, 7. Published online
16.6.2022.
Dupper, D. R., Theriot, M. T., & Craun, S. W. (2009). Reducing out-of-school
suspensions: Practice guidelines for school social workers. Children and
Schools, 31, 6–14.
Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P.
(2009). Improving inter-professional collaborations: Multi-agency working for
children's wellbeing. Routledge.

Engeström, Y. (2008) From Teams to Knots: Activity-theoretical Studies of
Collaboration and Learning at Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Graham, B., White, C., Edwards, A., Potter, S. & Street, A. (2019). School exclusion:
A literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children.
Department for Education.
Jabbari, J., & Johnson Jr, O. (2023). The collateral damage of in-school
suspensions: A counterfactual analysis of high-suspension schools, math
achievement and college attendance. Urban Education, 58(5), 801-837.
Ko, D., Bal, A., & Artiles, A. J. (2022). Racial Equity by Design: Forming
Transformative Agency to Address the Racialization of School Discipline. Urban
Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085922108177
Leung-Gagné, M., McCombs, J., Scott, C., & Losen, D. J. (2022). Pushed out:
Trends and disparities in out-of-school suspension. Learning Policy Institute.
Lloyd, C. (2008). Removing barriers to achievement: a strategy for inclusion or
exclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(2), 221-236.
Lloyd, G., Stead, J., & Kendrick, A. (2001) Hanging on in there: a study of
interagency work to prevent school exclusion. London: National Children's Bureau/
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Madia, J. E., Obsuth, I., Thompson, I., Daniels, H. and Murray, A. L. (2022) Long-
term Labour Market and Economic Consequences of School Exclusions in England:
Evidence from Two Counterfactual Approaches. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92(3): 801-816.
Marsh, A, J. (2015) Funding variations for pupils with special educational needs and
disability in England, 2014 Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
45(2), 356 – 376.
McCluskey, G., Cole, T., Daniels, H., Thompson, I. and Tawell, A. (2019) Exclusion
from school in Scotland and across the UK: Contrasts and questions. British
Educational Research Journal, 45(6): 1140-1159.
Mosco, V. (2009). The political economy of communication. SAGE.
Obsuth, I., Sutherland, A., Cope, A., Pilbeam, L., Murray, A. L., & Eisner, M. (2017).
London Education and Inclusion Project (LEIP): Results from a cluster-randomized
controlled trial of an intervention to reduce school exclusion and antisocial
behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 538-557.
Obsuth, I., Madia, J, Daniels, H., Thompson, I. and Murray, A. (202). The impact of
school exclusion in childhood on health outcomes in adulthood: Estimating causal

effects using inverse probability of treatment weighting. British Journa4l of
Educational Psychology and Psychiatry.
Ortega, L., Thompson, I. and Daniels, H. (2019) School staff advice-seeking patterns
regarding support for vulnerable students. Journal of Educational Administration,
58(2): 151-170.
Parsons, C. (2005) ‘School exclusion: The will to punish’, British Journal of
Educational Studies, 53(2): 187-211.
Perry, B. L., & Morris, E. W. (2014). Suspending progress: collateral consequences
of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79(6),
1067–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312241455630
Raffe, D., & Byrne, D. (2005) Policy learning from home international comparisons.
CES Briefing No 34. CES, University of Edinburgh.
Rosenbaum, J. (2020). Educational and criminal justice outcomes 12 years after
school suspension. Youth & Society, 52, 515– 547.
Slee, R. (2012) How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a
political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 895-907.
Slee, R. (2019). Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 23(9), 909-922.
Thompson, I., Tawell, A. and Daniels, H. (2021) Conflicts in professional concern
and the exclusion of pupils with SEMH in England. Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, 26(1): 31-45.
Tippett, N., Sullivan, A., Manolev, J. & Johnson, B. (2020). Use of Exclusionary
Practices in Australian Government Schools, School Exclusions Study Key Issues
Paper No. 3. University of South Australia.
UNESCO (2012) Addressing exclusion in education: A guide to assessing education
systems towards more inclusive and just societies. Paris: UNESCO.
Valdebenito, S., M. Eisner, D. P. Farrington, M. M. Ttofi, and A. Sutherland. (2018)
School-based Interventions for Reducing Disciplinary School Exclusion: A
Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2018: 1
Welsh, R. O., & Little, S. (2018). Caste and control in schools: A systematic review of
the pathways, rates and correlates of exclusion due to school discipline. Children
and Youth Services Review, 94, 315–39.