Internal Exclusions Surge in England’s Schools

Published: 03 September 2026.The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The proportion of secondary school students in England being removed from their normal classrooms and placed in internal exclusion has nearly tripled over three years, according to newly analysed education data, raising concerns about the growing use of classroom removal as a disciplinary measure.

The figures show that 13% of secondary school pupils were placed in internal exclusion at least once during the 2025/26 academic year, compared with 5% in 2022/23. The increase represents a 160% rise and highlights a significant change in how schools are managing behaviour and responding to disruption.

The data also reveals a marked disparity among different groups of pupils. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds were substantially more likely to experience internal exclusion than their peers. Around 22% of disadvantaged secondary pupils were removed from lessons at least once during 2025/26, compared with 8% three years earlier. That represents an increase of approximately 175%.

By comparison, the proportion among non-disadvantaged pupils was around 10% in the latest academic year, meaning poorer children continue to be disproportionately represented among those removed from mainstream classroom settings.

Students with special educational needs and disabilities are also significantly affected. The data indicates that 18% of pupils with an education, health and care plan experienced internal exclusion at least once during 2025/26.

The figures have renewed debate over the purpose and consequences of internal exclusion, a disciplinary practice that differs from school to school. In some institutions, pupils are placed in a designated room away from their usual classmates, sometimes referred to as an isolation room, where they are expected to complete schoolwork under supervision.

Unlike a fixed-term suspension or permanent exclusion, internal exclusion does not normally require a pupil to leave school premises. Students remain within the school environment and are generally expected to return to their regular classes once the disciplinary period ends.

Supporters argue that the approach gives schools a way to respond to serious disruption without sending children home. They say it can protect other pupils’ ability to learn while allowing the excluded student to remain within an educational environment.

Critics, however, warn that frequent or poorly managed classroom removal could damage children’s wellbeing, reduce their access to normal learning and potentially deepen existing inequalities. Concerns are particularly strong where disadvantaged pupils and children with additional educational needs are affected at disproportionately high rates.

The latest figures were collected and analysed by Arbor, a school management information system used by thousands of schools across England. The organisation’s data provides an insight into a form of exclusion that is not routinely captured in official national statistics.

The Department for Education collects information on permanent exclusions and fixed-term suspensions, but internal exclusions are not included in the same official reporting system. This means there is currently no comprehensive government dataset showing how often pupils are removed from lessons while remaining on school premises.

James Weatherill, chief executive and co-founder of Arbor, said schools clearly needed effective responses when behaviour interfered with learning. He noted that internal exclusion could provide an alternative to sending a pupil home but argued that the scale of the recent increase, particularly among disadvantaged children, deserved closer examination.

The rise has occurred at a time when official figures showed that formal suspensions and permanent exclusions had fallen during the previous year. The contrasting trends have raised questions about whether some disciplinary practices are shifting away from formal exclusion and towards measures that take place inside schools.

There is not enough evidence from the available figures to establish that internal exclusion is directly replacing suspensions or formal exclusions. However, the divergence demonstrates the importance of understanding what happens when pupils are removed from their usual classrooms but remain on school premises.

The duration and conditions of internal exclusion can vary considerably between schools. Some pupils may continue their academic work under supervision, while others may have limited interaction with classmates or access to normal classroom activities. Without consistent national reporting, it is difficult to determine how much education students receive during these periods.

School leaders have defended internal exclusion as a measured response that falls short of sending children home. Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said schools do not use internal exclusion lightly and typically consider it after other approaches have been exhausted.

He argued that the practice is intended to keep pupils within school while providing appropriate learning support. From this perspective, internal exclusion can offer schools an intermediate option when behaviour has become sufficiently disruptive to require a temporary separation from classmates.

Behaviour management specialists have also argued that classroom removal should not automatically be regarded as a failure of inclusion. Tom Bennett, a prominent expert in school behaviour, has said that removing a disruptive pupil temporarily can allow learning to continue for other students while giving the pupil access to a more closely supervised environment.

The argument is based on the idea that schools have responsibilities to all pupils, including those whose education or safety may be affected by serious disruption. A carefully managed internal exclusion can, supporters say, provide an opportunity for behavioural reflection, social skills work and continued academic study.

However, the disproportionate impact on disadvantaged pupils and students with special educational needs remains a central concern.

Lily Wielar, a researcher at the Education Policy Institute, said classroom removal had become deeply established as a behaviour-management practice in English secondary schools. She called for greater transparency and a clearer understanding of how and why the measure is being used.

One of the key questions is whether pupils who are removed from classrooms receive the same quality of education as their classmates. If internal exclusion becomes increasingly common but the educational provision during those periods varies significantly, pupils could experience substantial differences in learning opportunities.

The issue is particularly sensitive for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Students with education, health and care plans may require additional support and tailored approaches to learning and behaviour. Their comparatively high rate of internal exclusion has therefore prompted questions about whether existing support systems are meeting their needs effectively.

England’s children’s commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, said classroom exclusion could sometimes be necessary to protect other pupils but stressed that children should continue receiving a high-quality education even when they cannot remain with their peers.

The debate comes amid wider concerns about behaviour, attendance, school discipline and pressure on education services. Schools are dealing with a range of challenges, including pupil wellbeing, staff shortages, additional learning needs and pressure to maintain orderly classrooms.

Teachers and school leaders must balance the educational needs of an entire class against the individual needs of pupils whose behaviour is disruptive or potentially unsafe. Internal exclusion can therefore be viewed as both a disciplinary response and an attempt to maintain stability within the wider school community.

Yet the rapid increase shown by the latest data means policymakers may need to examine the practice more closely. Without nationally consistent information, it remains difficult to assess how frequently children are being removed, how long they spend outside normal lessons, what educational support they receive and whether the practice improves behaviour over time.

The figures also raise questions about fairness. If disadvantaged pupils and children with additional educational needs are more likely to experience internal exclusion, schools and policymakers need to understand whether this reflects higher levels of behavioural difficulty, differences in support provision, variations in school policy or wider social and educational inequalities.

For parents, the issue can be difficult to assess because internal exclusion does not necessarily carry the same visibility as suspension or permanent exclusion. A child may remain physically inside school while nevertheless spending significant periods away from ordinary classroom learning.

As the use of internal exclusion expands, calls for better monitoring are likely to grow. More consistent national data could help policymakers understand whether the measure is being used appropriately and whether children receive meaningful education and support while removed from their classes.

The latest figures do not establish that internal exclusion is inherently harmful or that schools are using it improperly. They do, however, demonstrate a substantial increase in a disciplinary practice that has received comparatively little attention in official national statistics.

The challenge now is to ensure that maintaining classroom order does not come at the expense of children’s educational opportunities or wellbeing. As schools continue to manage increasingly complex behavioural and learning needs, the balance between discipline, inclusion and support will remain a critical issue for England’s education system.