It was a Monday morning when Yas Blakey received a phone call from her son Alfie’s school, only 20 minutes after dropping him off. The voice on the other end was telling her: “He’s out of control; you need to come in and collect him.”
Alfie has suspected Autism and EHCP put in place, but this day was a photo day. It seems he had been over-stimulated by the flashing lights which ultimately led to him being excluded from school; one of the six exclusions the four-year-old has faced.
On government guidelines it states, “Schools should think about any triggers of misbehaviour so they can support all pupils with SEND to behave well.” In this instance this clearly wasn’t achieved, his exclusion even occurred before lessons had even begun. His case isn’t an anomaly.
Children with Special Educational Needs (SEN), Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), are significantly more likely than their peers to be suspended or permanently excluded, raising serious questions about how the education system supports its most vulnerable pupils. In the Spring term of 2024 alone, 320 children with an EHCP were permanently excluded from school, alongside a further 1,312 children receiving SEN support. Behind these numbers are children legally entitled to additional help—and a system increasingly relying on exclusion when that support is unavailable or insufficient.
Alfie Blakey was only granted his EHCP after his application was rejected twice due to lack of evidence. It was only when the school began supporting the appeal, describing him as a ‘severe case’ due to his age- he was only 4 at the time of the first exclusions. With suspected Autism and a Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) profile, he ultimately met the criteria to receive an EHCP. “He’s suspended a lot less, but they didn’t stop.” Yas said when asked whether the EHCP affected his exclusion rate.
In exclusion reports, Alfie’s behaviour was labelled as aggressive. His mother challenges that assessment, arguing that what the school interpreted as aggression were in fact defensive coping mechanisms associated with his suspected autism and PDA. “They would restrain him, he’s never been restrained in his life, I’ve never put my hands on him so why are you?” Yas described common reasons why this would happen,” if he was trying to self-injure, or sweeping things of the side they’d put him in the hold.” Yas went to her local MP to stop this from happening as the restraining techniques would only make it worse and put him into flight or fight mode. There was even one incident where she came in to collect him and there was 3 members of staff, two being fully grown men holding her 4-year-old, “I just thought it was totally inappropriate.” While schools often argue that exclusions are necessary to maintain safety and order, advocates would argue this reflects a systemic failure to support neurodivergent pupils, not just bad behaviour. Yas argues that the exclusions that followed, punished a child overwhelmed by the sensory overload of the environment rather than addressing the support he needed.
According to the government guidelines their sections on reasonable adjustment states “Schools should consider whether your child’s SEND has contributed to their behaviour, and whether it is therefore fair and lawful to sanction them because of this.” Despite this, statistics show that children who receive EHCPS are 4 times more likely to be excluded than those without.
But what happens when a child is excluded? Government guidance states that children suspended for five days or fewer should be set work that is marked. Once again, Alfie had been failed! “It was always me asking for work,” she said. “They’d tell me he would receive work, and then nothing would be sent, He received no education at all.” She spoke about the difficulty of trying to support his learning at home without guidance or equipment. “If he wasn’t naturally so bright, he’d be much further behind.”
Research by Chance UK shows that more than 90% of children excluded from primary school do not go on to pass GCSE English and maths, highlighting the long-term academic impact of exclusion. Yas says the effects were not only educational but social. Once a confident and sociable child in nursery, Alfie now struggles to connect with his peers after repeated exclusions and a 16-week placement in alternative provision, he is now often seen seeking out his siblings instead of classmates in the playground.
During his time at an alternative provision school—designed for children who struggle in mainstream education—Alfie began to thrive. Although younger than most pupils, the school adapted its approach, incorporating play-based learning and sensory support. He attended for just three and a half weeks, but the impact was immediate. “If I could choose somewhere for my child to go permanently, it would be there,” Yas said, describing the school’s sensory and regulation rooms. For the first time, her phone stopped ringing, and she began receiving positive feedback about Alfie’s days.
When Alfie returned to mainstream education, the school attempted to replicate this support. Through his EHCP, he was assigned a one-to-one SEN specialist. “She’s amazing,” Yas said. “She didn’t even know him, yet she handled him better than the teachers. ” I asked what needs to change to prevent exclusions, Yas pointed to funding and specialist staff. “Schools need more SEN-trained teachers and teaching assistants. They need classes set up like alternative provision.”
SEND advocate Elizabeth Grey started off by helping a friend who’s severely autistic child was unlawfully excluded in 2022, he had been given a suspension for behaviour that was entirely consistent with his diagnosis, “the school had lost their minds” she told me as she explained how the school tried to get an injunction against her as she quotes what they said “ I had weaponised the child in a vexatious attempt to bring down the school.” This never happened and governors and local MP stood in the way of this. Through this negative experience, it put Elizabeth on a mission to help other children and has been able to quash 9 out of 10 exclusions across the uk, using her knowledge of the equality and education act, giving her a 90% success rate. “There is a serious issue here with children with EHCPS or SENS who are getting unlawfully excluded.”
Her job is to find where schools hasn’t followed processes, polices, DFES and bleached legislation. Drawing on her professional experience, she said the most challenging schools to work with were academies. She argued that their separation from local authority oversight often made them harder to hold to account, in contrast to some council-run areas, particularly in parts of the North where labour runs, where exclusion officers and parental support systems are more commonly in place. “The biggest divide I see is between state schools and academy schools who are impossible to deal with they know how to cheat the system.” Gray explained.
She calls for changes to the way governing boards operate, suggesting they are not sufficiently independent when reviewing exclusions because of their working relationship with headteachers, which she believes leads to exclusions being routinely upheld. She recalled a conversation with a friend who worked as a teacher as well as a governor who said, “Teachers stick together, back the Headteacher no matter what they did.” Grey believes all panels need an independent body to stop this from happening.
Wendy Kravetz who is co-owner of the company London Governance, which is an independent, impartial company, “we’re not on anyone side, we are focused on the children and what is right for them.” She backs Greys opinion of the system and in her words describes the governor panel as a “conflict of interest.” This is where her team steps in who are IRPs and these permanent exclusions that were previously upheld are then quashed. “There needs to be a review of the process and procedure of how the PEX decision is reviewed at the first stage” Kravetz argued.
What is the reaction from the parents when they are faced with these meeting?
Wendy argued that Parents don’t know what they are doing, particularly working-class parents “they scramble” she says, “they are terrified of the headteachers and are not used to these sorts of meetings are left on the back foot.” This is where her company normally wants to support with, they want to help those who can’t pay their way “money talks” she said when talking about these situations.
Elizabeth Grey also sees this issue as she reports parents she’s worked alongside being sent 300-page word documents that they can’t navigate, and many saw the school as a right of authority leaving parents feeling although they weren’t equipped to fight for their children. “Parents arguments are often full of emotion but missing the legal points, sadly it’s not won with feelings it’s won on processes.” Grey explained. This highlights the combined disadvantage students who have an EHCP or SEN and come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face, as their parents often lack the resources, confidence, and procedural knowledge required to challenge school decisions this explains why these students are being disproportionately excluded! People like Wendy and Elizabeth are incredibly important as they can fight for these children and try make it a fairer system which is seen in their results.
Both emphasise the importance of reasonable adjustments and changes within the school to enable EHCP children to remain within school, both agreed that it is extremely hard for schools to navigate this due to financial reasons and lack of funding within schools. Data shows a 72% increase in demand for EHCPs, with schools reporting that available funding is insufficient to meet needs.
“Biggest problem is that behaviour courts don’t make reasonable adjustments, it’s applied black and white to all children, it’s so much harder for SEN kids to comply to this behaviour.” Grey also expressed how she fears about the lack of understanding of these students with special educational needs/ EHCP receivers as in one of her cases a teacher confided that it was her first time in 19 years since she had received SEN training. Elizabeth even laughed at the stupidity of one of her sons teachers at school who rang her to ask if she could speak to her son who has inattentive ADHD if he could concentrate in lesson, “That’s like asking if I can send him in with a new brain!” she giggled. This illustrates perfectly about the unrealistic expectations schools place on neurodivergent students and how staff are failing to see that they are misinterpreting a child’s needs/ differences as misbehaviour.
Although schools are legally not able to refuse a child to attend a school if named within their EHCP, this doesn’t stop prejudice towards pupils who receive them. As Elizabeth described “They think the children should be elsewhere” and “they don’t want problem children.” This type of thinking may be an underlying reason for exclusions against EHCP often not being used as ‘last resort’ like they are meant to.
In one case she worked on, a child was managed moved to another school. The parents had previously seen a report how the school didn’t want the child attending but legally they were required too. Just 3 days into this he was suspended for having his phone in class and not handing it in.The child reported that during this time a member of the senior membership team said “you’re not going to last long here are you now” which highlights the predetermined judgement place upon a child with an EHCP , they had already decided they would fail rather than trying to support him to try improving his behaviour. Elizabeth believes exclusions rates being 4x more likely to those with an ehcp in place is no coincidence it is causal, “Children I have seen it is because of their adhd or autism, one incident I worked on was an exclusion due to their SEN, they just believe they are more likely to repeat behaviours.” Wendy Kratz also agreed that it is causal saying that schools are just looking to “cut corners” and this is due to financial issues and schools just not being able to provide what they should do, “this is a safeguarding issue!” she claims.
Students are not being excluded because they are more disruptive or simply just the ‘naughty kids’ but because the education system is underfunded, undertrained and unwilling or unable to meet their needs. Alfie’s case reflects a wider pattern of neurodivergent behaviours being misinterpreted as mischief and punished rather than supported. Exclusion rates for EHCPS and SEN children show that there are no coincidences here, it is caused by rigid behaviour polices and insufficient specialist support. Until meaningful reasonable adjustments are made for these children and proper special educational needs training are provided and prioritised, exclusions will continue to be used to replace the support for the most vulnerable and misunderstood children.