The report, published by UK-based foundation Impetus, found that students in England who were suspended during their secondary years were also less likely to achieve high-level results in their studies, as well as having a higher likelihood of receiving unemployment benefits.

Government statistics released last month showed a marked increase in the number of pupils being suspended from England’s schools, with a record 787,000 suspensions issued in 2022-23 alongside a dramatic increase in behaviour problems after the pandemic.

Many researchers in student behaviour here in Australia agree that school suspensions can be detrimental – not only to potential future student outcomes, but also serve to exacerbate inequalities for marginalised students and cause more harm than good for struggling students. Others disagree.

Dr Jamie Manolev is a research associate at the University of South Australia, and a member of the Centre for Research in Educational and Social Inclusion.

Her research program is concentrated on educational issues across the platformisation and datafication of education, and school discipline, including in particular, school exclusionary practices.

“We know from research conducted in Australia, that school suspensions increase the risk of student disengagement from school, including dropping out early, which coincides with findings from the UK report,” Manolev tells MCERA.

“Exclusions have been associated with a range of negative outcomes and impacts, including increased future antisocial behaviour, increased use of alcohol, drugs and tobacco, increased likelihood of committing an offence as well as higher potential for homelessness.

“In addition, those who are suspended once have an increased chance of being suspended again, as well as heightened levels of disengagement with schooling and education, lower levels of academic attainment and achievement, as well as an increased likelihood of dropping out of school or not completing Year 12.”

Manolev says for parents and families, this can lead to increased parental stress, reducing current and future work opportunities and harming income-earning potential of an individual.

“As the report indicates, the costs of using school suspensions and exclusions to manage student behaviour are significant, therefore, reducing our reliance on them serves not only the interests of students but society as a whole.”

In contrast, some behaviour experts disagree that there is necessarily an association between suspension and expulsion and increased delinquency, including contact with the police.

In an opinion piece on The Conversation by Professor Linda Graham in May, about Yarra Valley Grammar’s decision to suspend two Year 11 students, she argued that schools ought to protect students who behave badly from further harm by engaging them in the restorative justice process, rather than resorting to suspensions and expulsions.

However, school leader and author Dr Greg Ashman said this point offers a great example of a key misunderstanding within the anti-exclusions lobby: the repeated confusing of correlation with causation.

In an EducationHQ article he said those children who behave in ways that are likely to lead them to being suspended or expelled from school are clearly those who are also more likely to be involved with the police and justice system.

“What the anti-exclusion campaign has tried to do is imply that the exclusions from school cause the kids to get in trouble with the police,” Ashman argued.

“Like, ‘it all started when a kid got excluded from school’ … and, ‘if we didn’t exclude kids, they wouldn’t go on to develop these other behaviours’.

“It’s a classic case of confusing correlation with causation. It’s statistics 101, you shouldn’t do that…”

At the core of the anti-exclusions campaign, Ashman added, is the mistaken idea that children only behave badly because they don’t understand the implications, or because they have been failed by adults in some way.

Sometimes, however, children are fully cognisant of what they’re doing, he noted.

Tom Bennett, lead behaviour advisor to England’s Department for Education, agreed.

Posting on X earlier this year, Bennett noted that restorative processes rely on perpetrators a) accepting responsibility for their actions and b) appreciating they were wrong.

“But if the student a) doesn’t accept responsibility, or worse b) completely accepts responsibility *and approves of the impact* then the process completely fails.

“This is why we don’t reduce eg. illegal parking with ‘a nice chat about why illegal parking is harmful’. We prohibit, and penalise. Big impact,” he posted.

Board Certified Behaviour Analyst (BCBA) and senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Dr Erin Leif, however, says suspensions often exacerbate existing inequities, particularly for marginalised students, and may increase their risk of involvement with the justice system.

“To address this, schools must understand why students display behaviours that put them at risk for suspension and implement proactive and preventative behaviour support practices within a multi-tiered system of support,” Leif, who specialises in children and young people with behaviours of concern who are most at risk for exclusion and social isolation, explains to MCERA.

“Additionally, enhancing pathways to employment through career and technical education, work-based learning opportunities, and re-engagement programs can help these students build the skills and connections needed for future success.”

Dr Cindy Ann Smith, an Educational Psychology lecturer at Curtin University, says there is ample research which shows that suspension of children from school is ineffective, and often has the opposite to the desired effect.

“While students are on suspension, they are often left unattended (their parents are at work), and they receive no instruction or support to change their behaviour,” Smith says.

“They return to school more disillusioned and angry at being excluded.”

Ashman contends that those who don’t have to deal with the consequences of their fanciful ideas about children and behaviour management stand to gain a lot by espousing the virtues of the anti-expulsions campaign.

“If you’re outside of school, and you’re a campaigner, you can feel very virtuous campaigning on behalf of these kids who get excluded from school, because they’re going to have worse outcomes … and it can make you feel very positive about yourself that you’re taking on the cause of these kids,” he said in May.

“But when that romantic ideology, that just assumes that all kids are inherently good, when that intersects with reality, you start to see the absurdities, and so teachers can’t live [within] that.”

Those sitting in scholarly ivory towers who also don’t engage with the victims of poor behaviour – and might speak only with those children excluded from schools for research purposes – never have their ideas challenged by practical realities either, Ashman concluded.