Updated on
April 11, 2026
|
April 5, 2026
A structured checklist for school leaders, behaviour leads and SENCOs to audit their provision before any permanent exclusion decision. Covers graduated interventions, external agency involvement, SEND considerations, alternative provision and parental partnership.
Permanent exclusion is one of the most consequential decisions a headteacher can make. It removes a child from their school community, disrupts their education and carries long-term implications for their life outcomes. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research found that permanently excluded children are twice as likely to be in the criminal justice system within two years (Gill, Quilter-Pinner and Swift, 2017). For school leaders, this decision also carries serious legal and reputation risks. This is especially true if the exclusion is challenged and found to have procedural problems.
This article provides a structured checklist. Behaviour leads, headteachers and SENCOs can use it to review their provision before any permanent exclusion decision. The checklist is not about preventing justified exclusions. It is about ensuring every reasonable support has been documented, delivered and reviewed before that threshold is reached.
The DfE guidance "Suspension and Permanent Exclusion from maintained schools, academies and pupil referral units in England" (updated 2023) sets out clear expectations. A headteacher may only permanently exclude a learner on disciplinary grounds. The decision must be lawful, reasonable, fair and proportionate. Importantly, the guidance states that schools should consider whether continuing to educate the learner would seriously harm the education or welfare of other learners.
In practice, Independent Review Panels and local authority officers look for evidence that the school followed a graduated response. They check if the school identified underlying needs, if external agencies were involved, and if reasonable adjustments were made for learners with SEND. A checklist creates the evidence trail that demonstrates due diligence.
A deputy head reviewing their provision might print this checklist and work through it with their SENCO: "Have we completed a functional behaviour assessment? Have we involved Educational Psychology? Have we tried a managed move?" Each unchecked item is a gap to address before the exclusion meeting.
Persistent disruptive behaviour is almost always a symptom, not a root cause. Before considering exclusion, schools need to investigate what is driving the behaviour. The checklist should include:
SEND screening. Has the learner been assessed for undiagnosed learning difficulties, ADHD, autism spectrum conditions or speech and language needs? Research from the Children's Commissioner (2019) found that 78% of permanently excluded children had unidentified or unmet SEND. A SEND assessment conducted at this stage can fundamentally change the support pathway.
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) review. Has the designated safeguarding lead reviewed the learner's background for trauma, domestic violence, bereavement, parental mental health or substance misuse? These factors do not excuse behaviour, but they determine what kind of intervention is appropriate. A learner experiencing ongoing domestic violence needs safeguarding, not sanctions.
Mental health assessment. Has the school referred to CAMHS or equivalent services? Has the learner's GP been contacted with parental consent? Anxiety, depression and attachment difficulties all manifest as challenging behaviour in the classroom. The school's mental health lead should be involved at this stage.
Schools should evidence a clear escalation of support before reaching the exclusion threshold. This is not about ticking boxes retrospectively. It is about demonstrating that each level of intervention was implemented, monitored and reviewed before escalating to the next.
| Intervention Level | Examples | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| Universal (Wave 1) | Classroom behaviour management strategies, seating plans, differentiated expectations, positive reinforcement systems | Behaviour logs, teacher observations, reward records |
| Targeted (Wave 2) | Small group nurture group, social skills programme, mentoring, check-in/check-out system, Zones of Regulation | Group records, progress tracking, entry/exit data |
| Specialist (Wave 3) | 1:1 behaviour intervention plan, therapeutic support, Educational Psychology involvement, CAMHS referral, alternative provision placement | Individual plans, review meeting minutes, agency reports |
A behaviour lead preparing for a governors' panel should be able to present dated evidence from each level. "We implemented classroom strategies in September, moved to targeted support in October, and involved external agencies in November" is a defensible timeline. "We gave multiple detentions and then excluded" is not.
Independent Review Panels pay close attention to whether schools engaged external agencies before permanent exclusion. The checklist should confirm involvement of:
Educational Psychology. Has an EP conducted an assessment or consultation? EP involvement is particularly important where SEND is suspected or confirmed. Their recommendations carry significant weight at review panels.
Behaviour Support Service. Has the local authority's behaviour support team (or equivalent outreach service) observed the learner, advised on strategies and reviewed the impact? Many local authorities offer this free of charge.
Social Care. Where safeguarding concerns exist, has a referral been made to children's services? Is the learner a Child in Need or subject to a Child Protection Plan? Excluding a looked-after child or a child with a social worker triggers additional duties under the Children Act (2004).
Health Services. Has the school sought input from CAMHS, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy or paediatric services where relevant? Health professionals can identify neurodevelopmental conditions that directly affect behaviour.
A SENCO could use this section of the checklist in a multi-agency meeting: "We have EP involvement but have not yet received the CAMHS assessment. Before we proceed, we need that clinical picture to inform our decision."
Learners with SEND are disproportionately represented in permanent exclusion statistics. DfE data consistently shows that learners with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) are permanently excluded at higher rates than their peers. This is both an ethical and legal concern.
The checklist should verify:
Has the learner been assessed for SEND, even if they do not have a current diagnosis? Has the school made reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act (2010)? If the learner has an EHCP, has the local authority been consulted? Has the school considered whether the behaviour is a manifestation of the learner's disability?
Excluding a learner whose behaviour is directly linked to their disability, without evidence of reasonable adjustments, is legally vulnerable. A school that has documented its adjustments, reviewed their effectiveness and escalated appropriately is on much firmer ground.
In practice, a SENCO might review the provision map and ask: "For this learner, we adjusted seating, provided a reduced timetable, allocated 1:1 TA support during transitions, and involved the autism outreach team. What else could we reasonably have tried?"
Before permanent exclusion, schools should explore whether an alternative placement could meet the learner's needs. The checklist should include:
Managed move. Has a voluntary transfer to another mainstream school been discussed with parents and the receiving school? Managed moves allow a fresh start without the stigma and legal consequences of permanent exclusion. They require parental consent and genuine partnership between schools.
Alternative provision placement. Has the school considered a part-time or full-time placement at a PRU or alternative provider? Dual registration allows the learner to access specialist support while maintaining their school place. Some learners thrive in smaller, more structured settings and return to mainstream successfully.
Reduced timetable. Has a temporary reduced timetable been considered as a short-term intervention? This should be time-limited, regularly reviewed and agreed with parents. It is not a long-term solution, but it can create space for other interventions to take effect.
A headteacher might discuss these options at a pastoral support programme meeting: "We have three alternatives to permanent exclusion. Let us consider each one before we reach a final decision."
The DfE guidance requires that parents are informed of their rights throughout the exclusion process. Good practice goes further: parents and the learner should be active participants in the support process long before exclusion is considered.
The checklist should confirm:
Have parents been invited to meetings at every escalation point? Has the learner had the opportunity to share their perspective, ideally with an advocate if needed? Have parents been told about their right to access independent advice from organisations like IPSEA or the Coram Children's Legal Centre?
A pastoral lead conducting a re-integration meeting might use a simple framework: "Tell me what school feels like for you right now. Tell me what would help. Tell me what gets in the way." Pupil voice gathered at this stage often reveals barriers that staff have not identified. One learner might say, "I kick off in period 5 because I have not eaten since breakfast." That is a hunger problem, not a behaviour problem.
Use this checklist before any permanent exclusion decision. Every item should be evidenced with dates, documents and outcomes. Gaps in this checklist are gaps in your provision.
| Area | Check |
|---|---|
| Needs Assessment | SEND screening completed. ACEs review conducted. Mental health assessment requested. Medical needs considered. |
| Wave 1 Support | Classroom strategies documented. Seating and environment adjusted. Positive reinforcement in place. Teacher training provided. |
| Wave 2 Support | Targeted group intervention delivered. Mentoring programme in place. Check-in/check-out system operating. Emotional regulation support provided. |
| Wave 3 Support | Individual behaviour plan written and reviewed. 1:1 therapeutic support accessed. Functional behaviour assessment completed. Modified timetable trialled. |
| External Agencies | Educational Psychologist involved. Behaviour support service consulted. CAMHS referral made. Social care informed (if applicable). |
| SEND Compliance | Reasonable adjustments documented. EHCP reviewed (if applicable). LA consulted for EHCP learners. Disability-related behaviour considered. |
| Alternatives Explored | Managed move discussed. Alternative provision considered. Reduced timetable trialled. Restorative approaches attempted. |
| Voice and Partnership | Parents informed and involved at every stage. Pupil voice gathered. Rights information provided. Multi-agency meeting held. |
Print this checklist and work through it with your behaviour lead and SENCO before your next exclusion meeting. Any unchecked item is a conversation that needs to happen first.
Permanent exclusion is one of the most consequential decisions a headteacher can make. It removes a child from their school community, disrupts their education and carries long-term implications for their life outcomes. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research found that permanently excluded children are twice as likely to be in the criminal justice system within two years (Gill, Quilter-Pinner and Swift, 2017). For school leaders, this decision also carries serious legal and reputation risks. This is especially true if the exclusion is challenged and found to have procedural problems.
This article provides a structured checklist. Behaviour leads, headteachers and SENCOs can use it to review their provision before any permanent exclusion decision. The checklist is not about preventing justified exclusions. It is about ensuring every reasonable support has been documented, delivered and reviewed before that threshold is reached.
The DfE guidance "Suspension and Permanent Exclusion from maintained schools, academies and pupil referral units in England" (updated 2023) sets out clear expectations. A headteacher may only permanently exclude a learner on disciplinary grounds. The decision must be lawful, reasonable, fair and proportionate. Importantly, the guidance states that schools should consider whether continuing to educate the learner would seriously harm the education or welfare of other learners.
In practice, Independent Review Panels and local authority officers look for evidence that the school followed a graduated response. They check if the school identified underlying needs, if external agencies were involved, and if reasonable adjustments were made for learners with SEND. A checklist creates the evidence trail that demonstrates due diligence.
A deputy head reviewing their provision might print this checklist and work through it with their SENCO: "Have we completed a functional behaviour assessment? Have we involved Educational Psychology? Have we tried a managed move?" Each unchecked item is a gap to address before the exclusion meeting.
Persistent disruptive behaviour is almost always a symptom, not a root cause. Before considering exclusion, schools need to investigate what is driving the behaviour. The checklist should include:
SEND screening. Has the learner been assessed for undiagnosed learning difficulties, ADHD, autism spectrum conditions or speech and language needs? Research from the Children's Commissioner (2019) found that 78% of permanently excluded children had unidentified or unmet SEND. A SEND assessment conducted at this stage can fundamentally change the support pathway.
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) review. Has the designated safeguarding lead reviewed the learner's background for trauma, domestic violence, bereavement, parental mental health or substance misuse? These factors do not excuse behaviour, but they determine what kind of intervention is appropriate. A learner experiencing ongoing domestic violence needs safeguarding, not sanctions.
Mental health assessment. Has the school referred to CAMHS or equivalent services? Has the learner's GP been contacted with parental consent? Anxiety, depression and attachment difficulties all manifest as challenging behaviour in the classroom. The school's mental health lead should be involved at this stage.
Schools should evidence a clear escalation of support before reaching the exclusion threshold. This is not about ticking boxes retrospectively. It is about demonstrating that each level of intervention was implemented, monitored and reviewed before escalating to the next.
| Intervention Level | Examples | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| Universal (Wave 1) | Classroom behaviour management strategies, seating plans, differentiated expectations, positive reinforcement systems | Behaviour logs, teacher observations, reward records |
| Targeted (Wave 2) | Small group nurture group, social skills programme, mentoring, check-in/check-out system, Zones of Regulation | Group records, progress tracking, entry/exit data |
| Specialist (Wave 3) | 1:1 behaviour intervention plan, therapeutic support, Educational Psychology involvement, CAMHS referral, alternative provision placement | Individual plans, review meeting minutes, agency reports |
A behaviour lead preparing for a governors' panel should be able to present dated evidence from each level. "We implemented classroom strategies in September, moved to targeted support in October, and involved external agencies in November" is a defensible timeline. "We gave multiple detentions and then excluded" is not.
Independent Review Panels pay close attention to whether schools engaged external agencies before permanent exclusion. The checklist should confirm involvement of:
Educational Psychology. Has an EP conducted an assessment or consultation? EP involvement is particularly important where SEND is suspected or confirmed. Their recommendations carry significant weight at review panels.
Behaviour Support Service. Has the local authority's behaviour support team (or equivalent outreach service) observed the learner, advised on strategies and reviewed the impact? Many local authorities offer this free of charge.
Social Care. Where safeguarding concerns exist, has a referral been made to children's services? Is the learner a Child in Need or subject to a Child Protection Plan? Excluding a looked-after child or a child with a social worker triggers additional duties under the Children Act (2004).
Health Services. Has the school sought input from CAMHS, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy or paediatric services where relevant? Health professionals can identify neurodevelopmental conditions that directly affect behaviour.
A SENCO could use this section of the checklist in a multi-agency meeting: "We have EP involvement but have not yet received the CAMHS assessment. Before we proceed, we need that clinical picture to inform our decision."
Learners with SEND are disproportionately represented in permanent exclusion statistics. DfE data consistently shows that learners with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) are permanently excluded at higher rates than their peers. This is both an ethical and legal concern.
The checklist should verify:
Has the learner been assessed for SEND, even if they do not have a current diagnosis? Has the school made reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act (2010)? If the learner has an EHCP, has the local authority been consulted? Has the school considered whether the behaviour is a manifestation of the learner's disability?
Excluding a learner whose behaviour is directly linked to their disability, without evidence of reasonable adjustments, is legally vulnerable. A school that has documented its adjustments, reviewed their effectiveness and escalated appropriately is on much firmer ground.
In practice, a SENCO might review the provision map and ask: "For this learner, we adjusted seating, provided a reduced timetable, allocated 1:1 TA support during transitions, and involved the autism outreach team. What else could we reasonably have tried?"
Before permanent exclusion, schools should explore whether an alternative placement could meet the learner's needs. The checklist should include:
Managed move. Has a voluntary transfer to another mainstream school been discussed with parents and the receiving school? Managed moves allow a fresh start without the stigma and legal consequences of permanent exclusion. They require parental consent and genuine partnership between schools.
Alternative provision placement. Has the school considered a part-time or full-time placement at a PRU or alternative provider? Dual registration allows the learner to access specialist support while maintaining their school place. Some learners thrive in smaller, more structured settings and return to mainstream successfully.
Reduced timetable. Has a temporary reduced timetable been considered as a short-term intervention? This should be time-limited, regularly reviewed and agreed with parents. It is not a long-term solution, but it can create space for other interventions to take effect.
A headteacher might discuss these options at a pastoral support programme meeting: "We have three alternatives to permanent exclusion. Let us consider each one before we reach a final decision."
The DfE guidance requires that parents are informed of their rights throughout the exclusion process. Good practice goes further: parents and the learner should be active participants in the support process long before exclusion is considered.
The checklist should confirm:
Have parents been invited to meetings at every escalation point? Has the learner had the opportunity to share their perspective, ideally with an advocate if needed? Have parents been told about their right to access independent advice from organisations like IPSEA or the Coram Children's Legal Centre?
A pastoral lead conducting a re-integration meeting might use a simple framework: "Tell me what school feels like for you right now. Tell me what would help. Tell me what gets in the way." Pupil voice gathered at this stage often reveals barriers that staff have not identified. One learner might say, "I kick off in period 5 because I have not eaten since breakfast." That is a hunger problem, not a behaviour problem.
Use this checklist before any permanent exclusion decision. Every item should be evidenced with dates, documents and outcomes. Gaps in this checklist are gaps in your provision.
| Area | Check |
|---|---|
| Needs Assessment | SEND screening completed. ACEs review conducted. Mental health assessment requested. Medical needs considered. |
| Wave 1 Support | Classroom strategies documented. Seating and environment adjusted. Positive reinforcement in place. Teacher training provided. |
| Wave 2 Support | Targeted group intervention delivered. Mentoring programme in place. Check-in/check-out system operating. Emotional regulation support provided. |
| Wave 3 Support | Individual behaviour plan written and reviewed. 1:1 therapeutic support accessed. Functional behaviour assessment completed. Modified timetable trialled. |
| External Agencies | Educational Psychologist involved. Behaviour support service consulted. CAMHS referral made. Social care informed (if applicable). |
| SEND Compliance | Reasonable adjustments documented. EHCP reviewed (if applicable). LA consulted for EHCP learners. Disability-related behaviour considered. |
| Alternatives Explored | Managed move discussed. Alternative provision considered. Reduced timetable trialled. Restorative approaches attempted. |
| Voice and Partnership | Parents informed and involved at every stage. Pupil voice gathered. Rights information provided. Multi-agency meeting held. |
Print this checklist and work through it with your behaviour lead and SENCO before your next exclusion meeting. Any unchecked item is a conversation that needs to happen first.
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/behaviour-support-checklist-before-exclusion#article","headline":"Behaviour Support Checklist: What to Put in Place Before Permanent Exclusion","description":"A structured checklist for school leaders, behaviour leads and SENCOs to audit their provision before any permanent exclusion decision. Covers graduated...","datePublished":"2026-04-05T13:10:24.726Z","dateModified":"2026-04-05T13:10:24.726Z","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Paul Main","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paulmain","jobTitle":"Founder & Educational Consultant","sameAs":["https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-main-structural-learning/","https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paulmain","https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Paul-Main/author/B0BTW6GB8F","https://www.structural-learning.com"]},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Structural Learning","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409e5d5e055c6/6040bf0426cb415ba2fc7882_newlogoblue.svg"}},"mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/behaviour-support-checklist-before-exclusion"},"wordCount":1704,"mentions":[{"@type":"Thing","name":"Autism","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q38404"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"ADHD","sameAs":"https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6109838"}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/behaviour-support-checklist-before-exclusion#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Blog","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/blog"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Behaviour Support Checklist: What to Put in Place Before Permanent Exclusion","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/behaviour-support-checklist-before-exclusion"}]}]}
