Rotherham’s school exclusion rates among country’s highest

ROTHERHAM has one of the highest secondary school exclusion rates in the country, Ofsted has revealed.

Rotherham Borough Council has now pledged to invest more in services to tackle the “very complex issue” after the borough was ranked as the area with the seventh highest rate in the country for fixed-term exclusions.

During the year, 1,216 students (6.7 per cent) were excluded at least once, and the total number of exclusions imposed was 3,687.
This amounted to 2,019 exclusions per 10,000 pupils — more than twice the national average.

A fixed-period exclusion means a pupil is barred from attending school for a set period of time, which can be anything from part of a school day up to a maximum of 45 days within a single academic year.

Read on…,rotherhams-school-exclusion-rates-among-countrys-highest_25834.htm


This may assist readers:

12 thoughts on “Rotherham’s school exclusion rates among country’s highest

  1. The usual twaddle from Gordon Watson who makes it up as he goes along ‘“more investment in services to help tackle what is a very complex issue”. For starters there is a designated Exclusion officer in the Local Authority who should be following the data, analysing it and reading the trends. In Rotherham’s case the buck stops with Thomas. Not a murmur out of him.

    Not least, asking challenging questions and looking for the factors as to why Rotherham’s schools (and academies) are chucking children out. No extra investment needed there. The data is already available so what has superman Thomas been doing apart from sharpening up his CV and ironing his superman outfit? He needs to produce an analysis based upon evidence for Council before he packs his suitcase.

    Critics say exclusions are increasing, partly because schools are under pressure to compete in league tables and exam results, and vulnerable pupils who are disruptive in lessons and likely to lower overall GCSE performance are weeded out before their national tests. Academies are ‘selecting’ in house, between years and before examination courses begin. They go unchecked.

    The schools watchdog, Ofsted, recently criticised this kind of behaviour in schools, which is known as ‘off rolling’. Watson’s attitude is naive ‘throw money at it and we’ll sort it’. Really? Thomas has had gargantuan lumps of funding yet his influence in schools is not evident. Roll your sleeves up Watson you ought to be ashamed of your lack of knowledge and officer input if these comments are all you can muster.



  2. Why do you think Thomas is getting out of Rotherham same as the commissioner Newsom and even the lead commissioner Sir Derick they all know Rotherham is a total lost cause in the hands of Labour who can S–t on every one and still get elected
    Even the communities minister cannot answer my question why he gave them the powers back
    It is a totally closed corrupt shop from the very top inc police, CPS, why do you think
    No one from Council officers Police officers, and Councillor’s have not faced being prosicuted over CSE in Rotherham when the evidence is out in the public demain and is undefencable
    I know I have been their and seen it first hand
    We live in a very morally corrupt state from all party’s
    In Rotherham the politcions beleive they are untouchable and can do what they want without challenge
    If you dare to challenge them they will use all in their power to distroy you
    Even using the judicial system to protect their positions and their nice life style at our cost


  3. Pony dropper unlike you what i do or say I do it under my own name unlike you a total coward who has to hide behind a shield like the little stalker you are
    And time will tell who was telling porkies


    • Caven, please stop making your erroneous point. You know perfectly well the reasons for the use of pseudonyms whilst blogging and I think you are in danger of over doing it, please refrain from now on.


  4. Rik the use of a pseudonyms is ok but I disagree when making personal attacks then that is very cowedly
    Your other point is excepted


  5. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 10th March 2018 | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.