Reducing school exclusions: what school-based interventions can – and can’t – achieve

14 January 2026
Children sit in a school assembly, being addressed by a teacher.

Credit: stock.adobe.com / Nico

'While some approaches show promise, others can have unintended adverse effects, underlining the importance of careful design, context-sensitive implementation, and ongoing monitoring.' Professor Alex Sutherland

New study identifies four factors shaping success of school-based measures in UK

School exclusion, commonly referred to as suspension, is a disciplinary measure which removes students from regular classes or school premises in response to misbehaviour.  In the UK, over 346,000 students were suspended for a fixed period, and 4,168 were permanently excluded in the autumn term of 2023/24 alone. With extensive research linking exclusions to negative outcomes such as crime and violence, many schools have introduced preventative measures to help reduce exclusion levels. 

To better understand how effective these school-based interventions are, Professor Alex Sutherland, Professor in Practice Criminology and Public Policy at DSPI, was part of a study recently published in Campbell Systematic Reviews. The research, School-Based Interventions for Reducing Disciplinary School Exclusion - an Updated Systematic Review, examined a wide range of approaches including mentoring, mindfulness schemes, teen courts, and skills training for teachers, parents and students. 

Key findings 

The research found that school-based interventions can reduce exclusions although their effectiveness varied: 

  • School-based interventions lowered exclusions rates: while modest, the reduction in school exclusions was statistically significant, indicating that these approaches can contribute to fewer exclusions. 

  • Effectiveness differed by programme type: some measures reduced general suspensions but were far less effective at preventing more severe exclusions, including expulsions and out-of-school suspensions. 

  • Four implementation factors are key: intervention format, policy consistency, staff buy-in, and perceived impact were central to whether programmes succeeded, highlighting the importance of flexible, context-sensitive delivery and strong school leadership.  

  • Context matters: interventions tended to be more effective in primary schools than in secondary schools, and programmes which focused on improving teacher skills showed promising results.  

  • Limited impact on wider outcomes: secondary outcomes, such as conduct problems, violence, and substance use, showed little or no improvement. 
     

“A considerable body of research has shown there is a strong association between school exclusion and negative life outcomes, yet we still lack a clear understanding of how to prevent the behaviours that lead to exclusion,” commented Professor Alex Sutherland. “Our findings highlight the complex relationship between interventions and disciplinary practices. While some approaches show promise, others can have unintended adverse effects, underlining the importance of careful design, context-sensitive implementation, and ongoing monitoring.” 

Recommendations 

General, school-wide approaches – such as consistent discipline, clear rules, and supportive environments – benefit most pupils. However, students displaying severe or violent behaviours often require more targeted, specialised support.  

The complexity of underlying behavioural and social factors needs to be recognised when addressing exclusion. Future research should focus on tailoring interventions to student needs and gaining a better understanding of when and how to exclude children – if at all – and what happens after exclusion. Read Professor Sutherland's research, School Exclusion and Youth Custody, which looks at whether school exclusion affects the probability of a child experiencing youth custody. 

Read the full research in Campbell Systematic Reviews