School Exclusions, Policing, and Violence – What Does the Evidence Really Say?
- Matt Bland
- 21 hours ago
- 3 min read
Summary
The seventh Easier Said Than Done session explored a complex and often contested issue: the relationship between school exclusions, serious violence, and the role of policing. Bringing together Professor Alex Sutherland and Superintendent Simon Rotherham (NPCC Children and Young Persons portfolio), the discussion moved beyond simple assumptions to examine what the evidence actually shows - and where it remains uncertain.
Setting the Scene: What Are We Talking About?
The session began by clarifying key definitions. Suspensions (temporary removal) and exclusions (permanent removal) are distinct processes, both widely used across the education system. While exclusions are relatively rare (around 11,000 annually), suspensions are far more common, approaching one million per year.
This scale is important. It reframes the issue from a small high-risk group to a much broader population experiencing disruption in education.
The Evidence: Correlation Is Not Causation
A central theme was the widely cited link between exclusion and serious violence.
Around 70% of children convicted of serious violence have previously been excluded
But only ~6% of excluded children go on to commit serious violence
This asymmetry is critical. It challenges the idea of a simple “pipeline” from exclusion to crime.
The panel emphasised:
Exclusion often reflects underlying behavioural or contextual issues
These issues may exist before exclusion occurs
Therefore, exclusion may be a marker, not a cause
There is some temporal evidence (e.g. exclusions often occur 1–2 years before serious violence), but this still falls short of proving causation.
The Policing Question: Where Should Police Sit?
There is currently:
No consistent national policing policy on exclusions
Significant variation between forces and even individual schools
Two potential roles were discussed:
1. Pre-exclusion
Police contributing intelligence to inform school decisions
Potentially helping schools understand safeguarding risks
But this raises concerns:
Could police information bias exclusion decisions?
Should intelligence (often unproven) influence educational outcomes?
2. Post-exclusion
Should excluded children be referred to police?
Should they come “onto the radar”?
This is contested. With only a small proportion going on to serious violence, there is a risk of:
Over-criminalisation
Unnecessary police contact for low-risk children
Local Variation and the Limits of Assumptions
One striking finding: London has the lowest exclusion rates in England, despite high levels of serious violence.
This challenges a simple geographic or causal link between exclusions and crime.
Instead, the panel pointed to:
Strong regional variation
School-level differences driven by policy, context, and practice
The need for place-based analysis, not national generalisation
What Actually Works?
Evidence on reducing exclusions points to four main areas:
Academic support
Counselling and wellbeing support
Targeted mentoring and relationships
Teacher training in behaviour management
Notably, policing has limited direct role in these.
This reinforces a key tension:
Policing is often involved downstream
But the most effective interventions are upstream and educational
The Bigger Issue: We’re Acting Too Late
A recurring point was that exclusion decisions come late in a child’s trajectory.
By that stage:
Behaviour patterns are already established
Opportunities for early intervention may have been missed
The panel suggested a shift towards:
Earlier identification
Multi-agency support before exclusion
Better use of existing school and local authority data
Information Sharing: Necessary but Risky
Information sharing between police, schools, and partners is essential—but difficult.
Challenges include:
Determining what is relevant
Avoiding prejudicial use of intelligence
Balancing safeguarding vs. overreach
The principle suggested: Be clear on why information is shared, not just that it is shared.
Key Takeaways
The link between exclusion and violence is real but complex
Exclusion is more likely a signal of risk than a cause
Policing currently operates in a fragmented and localised way
The biggest opportunity lies earlier in the process, not after exclusion
Evidence supports education-led interventions, not police-led ones
What Next?
Both panellists pointed to gaps in the evidence base, particularly around:
What works in multi-agency responses
The impact of police involvement (positive or negative)
Early identification and prevention strategies
