Secondary schools that use internal exclusion are isolating almost a fifth of their pupils from their classmates at least once each year, new data shows.
Department for Education guidance states that removal from the classroom – sometimes called internal exclusion or isolation – “should be considered a serious sanction” and used once all other behaviour strategies are attempted.
Despite the seriousness of the measure, the government does not collect national data on its use.
But analysis of hundreds of schools by The Key Group, which owns management information system provider Arbor, has laid bare how often the measure is practised.
It comes as parents report that children with unmet special educational needs felt “imprisoned” after internal exclusion, while others said their child became selectively mute after feeling like the “reject kid”.
But some sector leaders defended the practice as a “reset strategy designed to reboot the student’s behaviour and attitudes” and as a way to prevent suspensions or permanent exclusions.
One in five in isolation
Data from The Key Group revealed 18.4 per cent of 856,654 pupils were internally excluded at least once in the 762 secondary schools that recorded internal exclusion in 2024-25.
The proportion was similar to the previous two academic years – 18.6 and 17.2 per cent. The data excludes schools that recorded no use of internal exclusion.
Haroon Chowdry, the chief executive of the Centre for Young Lives, said the research showed why better data and transparency on internal isolation was needed “as well as other back-door forms of lost learning and exclusion”.
“The government should routinely collect this, both to shine a light on it and to ask why it is happening.”
The figures, extracted from Arbor in November, also show a further 2.16 per cent of 16,217 primary pupils were internally excluded across 443 schools, with 7.43 per cent of 6,782 special school pupils.
Nicola West Jones, the director of insights and external relations at The Key Group, said it was previously “impossible to obtain the data view” needed to understand internal exclusion rates.
“Schools can make their own decisions about the extent to which they use internal exclusions.
“So to that end, it’s interesting to see that overall, over the past three years, there has been very little change in both the percentage of secondary pupils who have had at least one internal exclusion recorded in Arbor, as well as the rate. It will be interesting to see if this changes –in either direction – over time.”
How schools approach internal exclusion
When Sam Strickland became principal of Duston School in Northamptonshire nine years ago, he found its isolation room in “total disarray”.
It had about 30 pupils, “making the member of staff who’s managing the room’s life a misery, graffiti everywhere”.
Instead of getting rid of internal exclusions, Strickland changed how they worked.
Now, disruptive pupils are removed from the classroom and placed one-to-one with a senior member of staff in their office. They complete their work, but also get pastoral support.
“You are truly isolated, you are on your own with a member of staff,” Strickland said.
“The flip side of that is that member of staff isn’t going to just ignore you, will support you if you need that help. But equally you can’t really mess around.”
At Beacon High School in north London, pupils are sent to a “refocus room”.
Those who may have underlying issues affecting their behaviour are directed to the wellbeing centre within the room to receive pastoral support.
Pupils who persistently misbehave are placed on a “pathways programme”, where the school identifies and provides support for particular issues that might be causing their behaviour.
Alan Streeter, the school’s head, said his system showed pupils, three quarters of whom are eligible for pupil premium, that “we’re not just here to punish you, we’re here to understand what you need to be successful”.
Tom Bennett, the government’s behaviour and attendance ambassador, said internal exclusions should be “described as a reset”.
“It’s a strategy designed to reboot the student’s behaviour and attitudes in a small group environment. It’s not a punishment, but a way of preventing or reducing actual suspensions and permanent exclusions.”
Bennett argued the practice was important to “demonstrate to the rest of the school community that their safety and learning matters”.
‘Unimaginable consequences’
But many campaigners have warned against the impact of internal exclusions.
Ellie Costello, from parent support organisation Square Peg, said an internal exclusion can “set a ball off in a child’s life that can have unimaginable consequences” that “disproportionately harms those facing the greatest challenges”.
A study by the University of Manchester found pupils with an education, health and care plan, eligible for free school meals, and from black, Asian and mixed heritage backgrounds were more likely to be sent to isolation.
Nikola Jones, from south Manchester, said her son’s time in one school’s isolation room after a playground incident “caused six weeks of anguish” and resulted in him becoming selectively mute.
“He kept calling himself the reject kid. His social workers said it retriggered all these feelings of rejection, shame and humiliation,” Jones said.
Another parent from South Hampshire, who requested anonymity, described how his daughter with unmet SEND needs was sent to an isolation room on a weekly basis.
“She felt at times she was being imprisoned, for things she wasn’t able to control, and for reasons she didn’t feel were right and weren’t properly explained to her.”
Do some schools use it more than others?
The Key Group’s data found that out of 6,782 pupils at special schools using internal exclusions, 7.43 per cent were sent to isolation at least once.
Horizons Education Trust runs three special schools. Adam Dabin, its chief executive, said putting pupils with social, emotional and mental health or ADHD in isolation “is probably [asking] everything they can’t do anyway”.
“If you then expect them to sit there and do that in silence, not move, have no support – how are we expecting them to succeed in there?”
At Orchards Academy in Kent, headteacher Hannah Carter introduced “movement breaks” for disadvantaged pupils who would otherwise find themselves in isolation.
“To exclude them from the room may be perceived as a form of rejection”, Carter said.
Instead of being sent to an isolation room, pupils can access learning in another classroom teaching the same subject.
Carter said it had “been working really well” because “it means they stay within the subject that they were learning and are following the same curriculum, but it’s a fresh start in a new classroom”.
Rates higher in trust schools, but data has caveats
The Key Group’s data also suggests schools run by multi-academy trusts are more likely to use internal exclusions as a behaviour management tool, compared to council-maintained secondaries.
In the 2024-25 academic year, there were 266.04 internal exclusions per 100 pupils in MAT-run secondaries, while LA-maintained secondaries had a rate of 153.02 per 100 pupils.
However, The Key Group said “any differences between MAT and LA schools could be explained by MAT-wide policies around recording internal exclusions on the MIS, for consistency of reporting, so we should be cautious about interpretation of these results”.
Bennett suggested MATs may be using internal exclusions more “because they have understood that resets can be a useful device to reduce suspensions”.
Steve Rollett, the deputy chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, said it was difficult to draw conclusions from the data as internal exclusions “can cover a lot of different practices”.
“Schools of all types use a range of techniques to address behaviour.”
Your thoughts