Politics

The true cost of excluding a child: £370,000

As new research shows, school exclusions result in huge personal and societal costs. What can be done?

October 19, 2017
Photo: David Jones/PA Wire/PA Images
Photo: David Jones/PA Wire/PA Images

Permanent exclusion from school usually marks the end of a long struggle to keep a child in mainstream education. Unfortunately, it often also marks the beginning of a life of unemployment, poor health and crime. In addition to the inestimable/immeasurable costs suffered by the child, IPPR's recent comprehensive study into school exclusions estimates that each cohort of excluded pupils goes on to cost the public purse an additional £2.1 billion, in benefits, healthcare and criminal justice costs.

Researchers at IPPR used government statistics and analysed data from various public services, to map outcomes for excluded children. We found that educational outcomes are particularly poor, with only 1 per cent of excluded children achieving the five good GCSEs needed to enter many professions.

Unsurprisingly, the impact on employment prospects is significant and immediate. An excluded child is nine times more likely than their non-excluded peers to be NEET (not in sustained employment, education or training) six months after their GCSEs. A 2014 Department for Education report found a marginal return of £150,000 over a life-time, just for getting two good GCSEs compared to getting none at all. Most excluded children don't even sit two GCSEs.

The story quickly becomes one of huge personal cost. Sustained spells of unemployment at an early age are closely linked to serious mental ill health, long-term unemployment and criminal activity. Less than 1 in 200 children is permanently excluded from school, but in the prison population almost one in two were excluded as children. IPPR did not include in their analysis the collateral costs, both personal and financial: crimes tend to have victims—health and employment costs; unemployed parents raise children in poverty—likely on benefits; imprisoned parents leave children in care—paid for by the state.

"Less than 1 in 200 children is permanently excluded from school, but in the prison population almost one in two were excluded as children"
IPPR's calculation is therefore a conservative one, reflecting the costs of: educating a child out of the mainstream system; lost taxation from lower future earnings; associated benefits payments (excluding housing); higher likelihood of entry into the criminal justice system; higher likelihood of social security involvement; and increased average healthcare costs. It estimates that each excluded child will cost an average of an additional £370,000 over their lifetime. Using the official figure of 6,685 children permanently excluded from school last year, this amounts to £2.1 billion for the cohort.

However, our report also explains that this is likely to be a gross under-estimate. Large numbers of children are effectively excluded from school, but do not appear in official statistics. This happens via a combination of informal exclusions and some illegal practices, meaning the total number of excluded children could be many times that officially recorded.

But, of course, the act of permanent exclusion isn’t responsible for the extent of negative outcomes for excluded children. In most instances, the pupils who reach this stage are already behind their peers, with many (77 per cent) classified as having a special educational need or disability. They are disproportionately likely to have grown up in poverty, to have an unstable home life and to be suffering mental health problems. Often, the last resort of exclusion is used if a child is dangerous to other pupils in their school.

Indeed, it is important to be clear that there are many cases in which permanent exclusion is the right decision, both for the individual child and their classmates. There are also instances where exclusion from school has a life-changing positive effect on a child, often because they receive support and attention that the mainstream cannot, currently, provide. These may well result in financial, as well as personal, savings.
"Our research estimates that each excluded child will cost £370,000 of public money over their lifetime—and 6,685 children were permanently excluded from school last year"
Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that exclusion does play an active role in these poor outcomes. Exclusion can damage self-esteem, and the loss of the teacher-pupil relationships in the excluding school can damage a child's mental health. Also, despite the great work of many alternative provisions (schools for excluded children), they are often places where levels of violence, aggression and poor attitudes to learning are higher.

In terms of the cost to society, the £2.1 billion figure represents the stakes at hand. Where school exclusion plays a causal role in poor outcomes, it is against this figure that its share of responsibility must be set. Reducing school exclusions is not a magic bullet, but it is an appropriate focus for trying to counteract these trends. While decisions to exclude are never taken lightly, a proportion of them will be avoidable. More will be avoidable if schools have greater expertise and means to support the children at risk. It is also essential that effective routes back into mainstream school are available for excluded pupils. Children are especially capable of change—acknowledging and supporting this will allow trajectories to be “rerouted” in some cases.

IPPR's report advocates for a new programme, designed to drive inclusion in our education system, by creating new expertise in schools' senior leadership teams. "The Difference" programme will take experienced mainstream teachers and place them in a senior leadership position in an alternative provision, for two years. While in post they will receive specialist training in working with the most vulnerable pupils. This training will focus on mental health and promoting emotional and behavioural self-regulation, as well as safeguarding and working effectively with other public services. Many graduates of this programme will return to mainstream schools to lead on behaviour and inclusion. Here they will cascade their knowledge and skills across the school, resulting in better identification and support for the needs of vulnerable children, before they are at risk of exclusion.

By enabling and supporting schools to include disadvantaged students with complex needs, we can improve the chances of these children succeeding in education and in life. Society needs this as much as the child does.