“(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to – (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (2) A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1). (3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to – (a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low. (4) The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities. (5)-(6) … (7) The relevant protected characteristics are – …; disability; …; race; ….”
“• Good discipline in schools is essential to ensure that all pupils can benefit from the opportunities provided by education. The Government supports head teachers in using exclusion as a sanction where it is warranted. However, permanent exclusion should only be used as a last resort, in response to a serious breach or persistent breaches of the school’s behaviour policy; and where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school [emphasis supplied]. • The decision to exclude a pupil must be lawful, reasonable and fair. Schools have a statutory duty not to discriminate against pupils on the basis of protected characteristics, such as disability or race. Schools should give particular consideration to the fair treatment of pupils from groups who are vulnerable to exclusion. • Disruptive behaviour can be an indication of unmet needs. Where a school has concerns about a pupil’s behaviour, it should try to identify whether there are any causal factors and intervene early in order to reduce the need for a subsequent exclusion. In this situation, schools should consider whether a multi-agency assessment that goes beyond the pupil’s educational needs is required.”
“9.Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Equality Act), schools must not discriminate against, harass or victimise pupils because of: sex; race; disability; religion or belief; sexual orientation; pregnancy/maternity; or gender reassignment. For disabled children, this includes a duty to make reasonable adjustments to policies and practices and the provision of auxiliary aids. 10. In carrying out their functions, the public sector equality duty means schools must also have due regard to the need to: • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and other conduct that is prohibited by the Equality Act; • advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not; and • foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. 11. These duties need to be complied with when deciding whether to exclude a pupil. Schools must also ensure that their policies and practices do not discriminate against pupils by unfairly increasing their risk of exclusion. Provisions within the Equality Act allow schools to take positive action to deal with particular disadvantages, needs, or low participation affecting one group, where this can be shown to be a proportionate way of dealing with such issues.”
“The head teacher and governing body must comply with their statutory duties in relation to SEN when administering the exclusion process. This includes having regard to the SEN Code of Practice.”
“A decision to exclude a pupil permanently should only be taken: • in response to a serious breach or persistent breaches of the school’s behaviour policy; and • where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school.”
“Early intervention to address underlying causes of disruptive behaviour should include an assessment of whether appropriate provision is in place to support any SEN or disability that a pupil may have. The head teacher should also consider the use of a multi-agency assessment for a pupil who demonstrates persistent disruptive behaviour. Such assessments may pick up unidentified special educational needs but the scope of the assessment could go further, for example, by seeking to identify mental health or family problems.”
“21. The exclusion rates for certain groups of pupils are consistently higher than average. This includes: pupils with SEN; pupils eligible for free school meals; looked after children; and pupils from certain ethnic groups. The ethnic groups with the highest rates of exclusion are: Gypsy/Roma; Travellers of Irish Heritage; and Caribbean pupils [emphasis supplied]. 22. In addition to the approaches on early intervention set out above, the head teacher should consider what extra support might be needed to identify and address the needs of pupils from these groups in order to reduce their risk of exclusion. …”
“The Claimant presented substantial and compelling statistical evidence relating to the over-representation, both nationally and locally, of those with protected characteristics such as TZB’s among those who are permanently excluded from school. Ms Harrison KC emphasised that issues of intersectionality, or layering of disadvantage, meant that the impact on those who, like TZB, had multiple protected characteristics, was further amplified. She drew my attention to evidence of the severity of the potential impact on a permanently excluded child in the form of a school to prison pipeline’, with the dire implications that such a path has for the life chances of such a child.”
“I regret to inform you that I am permanently excluding [TZB] from [the] School from Thursday14 May 2021 because of his wholly unacceptable behaviour. The behaviour for which [TZB] is being excluded is two acts of physical violence towards members of the school community during two separate incidents on Thursday 6 May. I have no doubt that permanent exclusion is the right sanction given the seriousness of the breach of the school’s Behaviour Policy and that the risk to the welfare and education of others were I not to exclude permanently would not be acceptable. I give further details of the circumstances leading to this exclusion under ‘[TZB’s] Misconduct/Physical Assaults’. Under ‘Disciplinary Record and Background’ I also detail [TZB’s] whole school record. I do this for two reasons. Firstly, having concluded that a serious breach of discipline has occurred, before deciding to exclude, I am required to consider the risk to the education and welfare of others in allowing [TZB] to remain in the school. Whilst I believe [TZB’s] behaviour in the incidents of Thursday 6 May are enough in themselves to justify my decision that his continued presence would present an unacceptable risk to the welfare and education of others, his poorer wider conduct, and the effect of previous sanctions employed by the school as a result of such behaviour are relevant considerations. Secondly, whilst I have no doubt that physically assaulting members of our community is in itself sufficiently serious to warrant permanent exclusion, should it be asserted that it is not, I would ask consideration be given to the totality of [TZB’s] school record as set out in this letter and the effect of previous sanctions. Repeated acts of physical assault towards members of the school community justify permanent exclusion even if the events of Thursday 6 May do not on their own.”
“In reaching my decision I have ensured that a full and thorough investigation has taken place. I am satisfied that [TZB’s] The name actually used here and later in the same paragraph was that of another student. That was careless, but TZB’s correct name was used in the rest of the letter and the mistake is not a matter of any significance for our purposes. actions represent serious breaches of the school’s Behaviour Policy and that allowing him to remain in school would harm the education and welfare of other members of the school community. The nature of the exclusion reflects the seriousness of the incidents detailed above as well as [TZB’s] previous conduct. …”
“In reaching a decision on whether or not a pupil should be reinstated, the governing body should consider whether the decision to exclude the pupil was lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, taking account of the head teacher’s legal duties and any evidence that was presented to the governing body in relation to the decision to exclude.”
“[She] added that she had also considered the requirements of the Equality Act and was confident that [TZB] had not been treated any less favourably than any other student.”
“She further commented that the Governors should take into account any extenuating circumstances such as family situation and whether [TZB] belonged to a group with disproportionately high levels of exclusion, such as Special Education Needs, Looked After Children, certain ethnic groups and Free School Meals. It was noted that [TZB] was at Stage K School Support on the School’s SEN register at the time of the exclusion and was entitled to Free School Meals. [TZB’s] ethnicity is stated as Black Caribbean which is both a group highlighted by the DfE as having above average levels of exclusion and a group which is over-represented in terms of exclusion from [schools within the local authority area]. Support provided by the School to [TZB] was outlined in the paperwork.”
“10.1 The Governors discussed all issues in relation to this incident. 10.2 It was agreed that the incident had been investigated thoroughly, and the statements taken following the incident were noted. 10.3 It was agreed that the education and welfare of both staff and students in the School was paramount. It was agreed that allowing [TZB] to return to school could harm the education or welfare of others in the School. Staff and students had a right to come to the School and feel safe. 10.4 It was agreed that on the balance of probabilities the incidents had happened as described by the School. 10.5 Governors discussed if the incidents were severe enough to warrant a permanent exclusion. It was agreed that the incidents constituted a serious breach of the School’s Behaviour Policy. It was agreed that the sanction was a proportionate response to the incidents. 10.6 The Governors agreed that the exclusion met both parts of the two-fold test. 10.7 Governors discussed the support provided by the School. It was agreed that the School had followed the DfE guidelines and offered every support that it could reasonably be expected to provide. The family had not been able to suggest any further support that the School could have provided. [TZB’s] mental health was also discussed. Mum had reported that [TZB] had attempted suicide. [TZB] was a carer to his siblings and had dispensation to leave school early. [TZB] had also been offered counselling. It was also noted that the exclusion was for a one-off serious offence and details of the support provided was for background information only. 10.8 Governors discussed the family’s extenuating circumstances. It was agreed that the Family had not made the School aware of any extenuating circumstances. 10.9 It was agreed that the School’s Policy on exclusions had been followed in full. The Governors further agreed that they felt that the DfE’s guidance on permanent exclusions was met. It was also agreed that the School needed to be consistent to all students in applying the Behaviour Policy. 10.10 It was further agreed that the requirements of the Equality Act had been considered and [TZB] had not been treated any less favourably because of his SEN needs. 10.11 It was agreed, by a majority decision, that [TZB] met the criteria for exclusion and that the Head’s decision was legal, reasonable and procedurally fair and that the exclusion was justified and agreed to decline to reinstate [TZB] to the School.”
“The Committee also considered the support provided by the School to [TZB] for his SEN needs, these were detailed in the papers provided by the School and discussed in the meeting. The Committee considered that the School had provided considerable support to [TZB] during his time at the School. The Committee further noted that as the exclusion was for a serious breach this information had been provided for context only. … The Committee also considered [TZB’s] background and whether there were any extenuating circumstances or special educational needs. He was entitled to Free School Meals and on the School’s SEN Register at Stage K-SEN Support at the time of the exclusion. [TZB’s] ethnicity is stated as Black Caribbean which is a group highlighted by the DfE as having above average levels of exclusion and is a group which at times has been over-represented in terms of exclusion from [schools in the local authority area]. The Committee agreed that [TZB] had access to, and engaged in, relevant support and interventions.”
“The public sector equality duty is well defined in [Guidance] paras 9-12 and 19. It was exhaustively explored throughout the Panel and the Panel’s observations in more detail can be found in paragraph 9 below.”
“(1) Where the review panel— (a) recommends that the proprietor reconsiders a decision not to reinstate a pupil who has been permanently excluded; or (b) …, the proprietor … must reconsider the exclusion. (2) When the proprietor has reconsidered its decision it must inform the relevant person, the principal and the local authority of its reconsidered decision and the reasons for it without delay. (3) …”
“The reconsideration provides an opportunity for the governing body to look afresh at the question of reinstating the pupil, in light of the findings of the independent review panel. There is no requirement to seek further representations from other parties or to invite them to the reconsideration meeting. The governing body is not prevented from taking into account other matters that it considers relevant. It should, however, take care to ensure that any additional information does not make the decision unlawful. This could be the case, for example, where new evidence is presented or information is considered that is irrelevant to the decision at hand.”
“In my view, the form of reconsideration that the School Exclusion Guidance envisages and that the Claimant’s solicitors advocated, is for a governing body panel to review the material presented at the original hearing, and to consider whether or not its previous findings and decision should be changed or upheld. There is a residual discretion to consider new information, if relevant.”
“These brief submissions solely focus on the [GSD’s] failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty … undersection 149 Equality Act 2010 . As to the remainder of the issues to be determined at the reconsideration hearing, [the Claimant] adopts the submissions presented both orally and in writing to the Independent Review Panel … and the IRP’s other recommendations for reconsideration.”
“[The Claimant’s] position on the PSED is simple: the headteacher does not have any records (comparable in substance if not in form to an Equality Impact Assessment) detailing compliance with the PSED at the material time. Despite repeated questions on this point at the IRP hearing the headteacher disclosed nothing that came close to discharging her duty. The burden was on the headteacher to demonstrate compliance and she failed to do so.”
“It was also agreed that they had taken notice of the Local Authority’s guidance on the student’s characteristics. It was also agreed that the Board of Trustees received regular updates on the School’s exclusion statistics and challenged them if any particular group was overrepresented in the exclusion data. [The Chair] further confirmed that in her capacity as Link Governor for Inclusion she had previously asked the School what support they and the LA provided for particular groups who were overrepresented in terms of exclusion statistics.”
“The guidance was clear that the GDC should have regard to the evidence presented by the Head. There had been consideration of [TZB’s] special needs at every stage of the process, the Head’s position was clear that [TZB’s] race and special needs had been known to her but were not sufficient to cause her not to decide not to exclude him. She had considered all these factors in reaching her decision to exclude him.”
“45. The legal requirement is simply that ‘due regard’ is in fact paid to the PSED by the decision maker, and such due regard must (to state the obvious) precede the decision maker’s conclusion of the decision, as otherwise it would amount to justification for the decision rather than the reasons for it. 46. As Lord Justice Aikens said in R (Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2008] EWHC 3156 (Admin) , ‘while there is no duty to make express reference to the regard paid to the relevant duty, reference to it and to the relevant criteria reduces the scope for argument’ and ‘it is good practice for a decision maker to keep records demonstrating consideration of the duty’.”
“52. Ms Harrison KC submitted that this passage left open the possibility that the Headteacher had considered theEquality Act 2010 (and therefore the PSED) only post-exclusion, and possibly for the first time when giving evidence at the initial GDC meeting. 53. However, the minutes are just minutes: they are not a verbatim transcript of what was said at the hearing. It is not appropriate to parse the minutes as if they are legislation. As is clear from the witness statement of the Chair of the GDC, and as is adequately clear from the minutes of the initial GDC meeting and the reconsideration meeting when read together and as a whole, the GDC understood the Headteacher’s evidence as being that she had complied with theEquality Act 2010 . Since compliance can only be achieved by giving due consideration to the PSED duty prior to concluding the decision in question, the GDC was entitled to the interpretation that it put on her evidence. 54. While the authorities relating to exercise of the PSED rightly counsel caution in relation to evidence given after the event about how a decision maker reached their decision, that is not to say that it would be wrong in all circumstances to place weight on such evidence. The GDC had to assess the evidence before it and decide, in the light of the evidence as a whole, what evidence it could rely upon and what it could not. 55. A school Governing Body carrying out its role of considering whether to reinstate a permanently excluded pupil is not in the same position as a court reviewing a public authority's decision: the members of a governors’ disciplinary committee can be expected to have considerable experience of the Headteacher through their interactions as governors. That experience is likely to have put the members of the GDC in an excellent position to form a view of the Headteacher's credibility and to assess the reliability of her evidence. 56. In assessing whether the GDC was entitled to give the weight that it did to the Headteacher’s evidence on her decision making, I am entitled to consider all the evidence before me, including the witness statement of the chair of the GDC dated11 January 2023 … .”
“60. The context here is that the Exclusion Decision was an individual exclusion decision affecting a single pupil with known protected characteristics. The immediate practical impact of the exclusion on TZB was obvious, albeit that the full extent of the possible long term consequences for TZB’s life chances, as explained in the evidence submitted on behalf of the Claimant in these proceedings, were less obvious. 61. The Exclusion Decision was made by the Headteacher of a large, ethnically and culturally diverse urban secondary school of approximately 1500 pupils, approximately 3% of whom identified as Black Caribbean, nearly 25% of whom identified as Black, and approximately 27% of whom identified as White. The school population, as one would expect, includes pupils with a wide variety of aptitudes, abilities and disabilities, and the School has a dedicated Inclusion Faculty. It is clear (and would have been clear to the GDC at the time of making both of its decisions) that the Headteacher was well aware both of TZB’s ethnicity and of his special educational needs and the support that had been provided to him in this regard. 62. [Already quoted at para. 19 above.] 63. The School didn’t dispute this evidence. Neither did it claim that the Headteacher read this particular research before making the Exclusion Decision. However, its case was that (as was demonstrated by her evidence in her witness statement) the Headteacher was very well informed not only about TZB’s own circumstances but also about the disproportionate representation of those sharing his protected characteristics among those permanently excluded from school, not only nationally but also locally (albeit that the School had a lower rate of overrepresentation than was the case in local schools generally). 64. While not binding on the GDC, or indeed on me, I note that the advice given by the Secretary of State in relation to the implementation of the PSED in schools cases is that ‘the duty only needs to be implemented in a light-touch way, proportionate to the issue being considered’ (see paragraph [5.7] ofEquality Act 2010 Advice for Schools’). That is consistent with the approach taken in the authorities. 65. What was required of the Headteacher in the circumstances of this case was simply to ensure that she brought the matters which were, as an experienced leader in a diverse urban secondary school, already within her knowledge in relation to TZB’s protected characteristics and the disadvantage experienced by those sharing those characteristics into her consideration of all relevant factors in the decision making process. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the GDC was entitled to find that the Headteacher had complied with her duties under theEquality Act 2010 (including the PSED).”
“[T]he discipline committee of the governing body is not a tribunal of appeal from the head teacher but part of a single decision-making process within the school in which both play a role”
“I would therefore reject [the] submission [of counsel for the school] that the governors’ only duty was to decide whether the head teacher had acted reasonably. In our view it was their duty to establish to their own satisfaction what the primary facts were – as in fact they did. In doing so they were entitled to start from the head teacher's findings. For his part, the head teacher was entitled to reach what was in practice, and arguably too in law, a provisional decision in the way he did precisely because it had to be fully and fairly reviewed by the governors. It was the governing body which then had to afford a fair hearing.”
“In considering this protracted Appeal the Panel could not find any reason that was so compelling or of such magnitude that would merit quashing the permanent exclusion. However, there are sufficient reasons for the Governing Body to consider the reinstatement of [TZB] (see para 8).”
“(i) the GDC failed to test whether the permanent exclusion was for a ‘serious’ breach or for ‘persistent’ breaches of the School’s behaviour policy (see paragraph [8.1]) of the IRP Decision); (ii) the GDC did not test what [TZB’s] status was in the school prior to exclusion, contrary to paragraph [14] of the Department for Education’s guidance (see paragraph [8.2]) of the IRP Decision); (iii) the GDC did not ascertain why the Headteacher had not given the family an opportunity to present their case before the decision to permanently exclude was made, contrary to paragraph [17] of the Department for Education’s guidance (see paragraph [8.2]) of the IRP Decision); (iv) in relation to the second incident relied upon by the School, that the GDC had not noticed the reference in the family’s submission to the criminal case in respect of it having been dropped, and had not scrutinised it at the hearing or recorded it in the minutes was ‘unreasonable’ (see paragraph [8.3]) of the IRP Decision); (v) it was ‘unreasonable’ for the GDC to fail to test whether a review was undertaken (in accordance with paragraph 19 of the Department for Education’s guidance) after each fixed term exclusion nor a formal assessment of TZB’s social, emotional and mental health, and whether more could be done’ (see paragraph [8.5]) of the IRP Decision); and (vi) the GDC failed to consider the fact that TZB was due to sit his GCSEs shortly after his permanent exclusion, which was relevant to the issue of proportionality, and which may have made a long fixed term exclusion more appropriate (see paragraph [8]) of the IRP Decision).”
“The Panel were also satisfied that [TZB’s] SEN needs had been considered and that the School had done everything it could to support [TZB]. The Panel also considered all the points raised by the IRP and, having thoroughly reviewed all the evidence submitted to them, they agreed to decline to reinstate TZB.”
“For these purposes its reasons cannot include what is said in the witness statements of the chair of the GDC or the Headteacher.”
“91. Concern (i) is puzzling, since under the heading ‘Decision’ in the minutes of the initial GDC meeting it is stated: ‘It was agreed that the incidents constituted a serious breach of the School’s Behaviour Policy’. In view of this clear statement, it wasn’t incumbent on the GDC to explain this any further. 92. Concern (ii) relates not to TZB’s permanent exclusion, but rather to the situation prior to that exclusion. As such it wasn’t necessary for the GDC to deal with that either. 93. Concern (iii) is based on a misunderstanding on the part of the IRP about what paragraph 17 of the guidance says: it refers to giving an opportunity to the pupil, not the family, to present their case, and the GDC was aware that the School had taken a statement from TZB as to his account of events. As such, the GDC didn’t need to address this specifically in its reasons. 94. Concern (iv) is raised in the context of the IRP having accepted the School’s finding that the second alleged incident did in fact occur. As such, the GDC was not required to address this concern specifically in its reasons. 95. Concern (v) is adequately addressed by the GDC’s explanation of the consideration it gave to the support afforded to TZB in the opening paragraph of page 2 of the GDC reconsideration meeting …: ‘[5] The Panel commented on the level of support provided to [TZB], he had been provided with support since the transition period in Year 6, this had been fully outlined in the pack submitted to the original GDC meeting. It was also noted that the Pastoral Support Plan dated20 November 2020 had stated that “both school and home have identified a marked change in his attitude this year as he is presenting increasingly more defiant”
“he had behaved dangerously putting others at risk and causing disruption”. … [8] The Panel also commented that they had asked the family and the School if there was anything further that could have been done to support [TZB] and nothing further was identified.’ 96. In respect of concern (vi), the fourth paragraph after TZB’s name on the first page of the minutes of the GDC reconsideration meeting explains that the GDC had considered whether TZB would miss any examinations and was aware that arrangements had been made to allow TZB to take his exams.” (I have inserted the square-bracketed paragraph numbers in the quoted passages in para. 95, to allow cross-reference to my para. 55.) ‘[5] The Panel commented on the level of support provided to [TZB], he had been provided with support since the transition period in Year 6, this had been fully outlined in the pack submitted to the original GDC meeting. It was also noted that the Pastoral Support Plan dated20 November 2020 had stated that “both school and home have identified a marked change in his attitude this year as he is presenting increasingly more defiant”
“It is not clear in [the exclusion letter] if the decision to exclude [TZB] was in response to a serious breach or persistent breaches ([Guidance] para 16). Paragraph 4 of [the exclusion letter] starts that a serious breach has occurred yet refers to two incidents. Almost by way of bolstering the case paragraph five asks that repeated acts of physical assault be considered. The [Guidance] is clear: it is either a serious breach or persistent breaches, not both and that should be made very clear to the family as to the reason for permanent exclusion.”
“that the GDC had not noticed the reference to the case being dropped in the families submission ... nor scrutinised it at their hearing, nor have it recorded in the minutes is unreasonable”
“The EHAP [Early Help and Assessment Programme] for [TZB] was closed in October 2020 and there were three FTEs:27th November 2019 ,17th November 2020 and26th March 2021 . Mindful that the Clinical Psychologist’s letter is dated September 2018 … there is sparse record of any documented formal review of [TZB’s] SEND in relation to his behaviour. In particular, there is no evidence that after each FTE [Fixed-Term Exclusion] a review was undertaken as per [Guidance] para 19, nor a formal assessment of [TZB’s] Social, Emotional and Mental Health and whether more could be done ... Here the GDC did fail to test these relevant points and record that test and their deliberations in the minutes. This is unreasonable.”
“[The Assistant Head] outlined the extensive support given to [TZB]. … [A] An Education Plan had been developed for [TZB] each year. … The Education Plan built on the curriculum that a student with learning difficulties or disabilities was following and set out the strategies being used to meet that student’s specific needs and inform the teacher and others working with the child of specific targets for him and how these will be reached. Additionally, it allowed the School and staff to plan for progression, monitor the effectiveness of teaching. monitor the provision for additional support needs within the School, collaborate with parents and other members of staff and help [TZB] become more involved in his own leaming and work towards specific targets. An Education Plan supported teaching and learning and set out actions for the teacher and student that are different from or additional to those that are in place for the rest of the class. It was reported that the Education Plan was no longer a legal requirement, … but as a school that believes in doing what is best for the students, having an education plan in place for each of our SEN students is a part of our best practice in school. The provision was monitored against the plan through termly SEND review meetings. [B] It was further reported that a Pastoral Support Plan was in place which was shared with all teaching staff. A Pastoral Support Plan was a school-based document which helps students to improve their social, emotional and behavioural skills. The PSP identified precise and specific targets for [TZB] to work towards. [C] … [TZB] attended the Behaviour for Leaming programme to improve his behaviour inside and outside the classroom, to therefore assist his learning and help build strong relationships with both peers and teachers. [D] [TZB] had challenges with self-confidence and had been placed on the Friends for Life. This was an intervention based on CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) designed to support students with maintaining positive relationships. The programme used CBT to address negative thought patterns about oneself to build self-esteem and teaches students healthy coping strategies, problem solving skills and assertiveness to better maintain positive relationships. 2.8 [E] He had also attended the Boys with a Purpose programme. Boys were taught a bespoke scheme of work to develop their self-awareness and resilience. Lessons focused on enabling students to better understand themselves as learners and individuals and work to build healthy and positive relationships with others. The aim of the programme was to cultivate resilience, motivation and optimism for the future and to empower to view themselves and their worlds in positive terms. [F] He had access to the School's counselling service and attended 12 sessions. Sessions were run by an external agency to support [TZB] in a talking-based therapy. The counsellor was a trained, objective professional with whom [TZB] could build a healing and trusting relationship. Students engaged in this process of talking about and working through your personal problems. [G] He received 11 placements in the Inclusion Centre and received support on the Social and Emotional Aspects of learning. The placement is set up to allow bespoke specialist small group support tailored to individual needs, taught by specialist SEN and mainstream teachers with daily tracker sheets sent home to include parental support. [H] He had also been assessed by the Clinical Psychologist and had sessions with her. [I] The School had opened an Early Help Assessment Plan (EHAP) and made eight referrals to Social Services.”