How bad could an Observer article about school exclusions be? Part 1

News reporting about school exclusions is always bad, but what happens when the world's worst education journalist reports on the issue?

A very large dumpster fire.

If the Observer reports anything about education correctly, assume it was an accident

You may remember that the Observer’s education reporting is very, very bad. One journalist, Anna Fazackerley, has written all of the terrible stories. Her main method of reporting seems to be to regurgitate uncritically what edutwitter trolls have told her, and then add a few comments, often from cranks. It’s got beyond the point where I can quickly recap the inaccurate, misleading and biased stories the Observer has published. However, this blog post contains a list of all the full-length blog posts I’ve written about Anna Fazackerley’s stories. Some highlights include:

• when she reported that the DfE’s¹ behaviour advisor was leaving his position;

• when she reported that a school in severe difficulties was an inspirational success story because the headteacher said so;

• when she reported that the DfE was creating files on “education experts” not realising that most of the files were Subject Access Requests that these alleged experts had asked for.²

Fake News Fazackerley strikes again

Bad reporting on exclusions is almost normal in journalism in the United Kingdom. Most news stories are influenced by inaccurate reports from think tanks and charities or false claims from activists. However, the Observer can lower the bar even further. This article is a stinker. Most of the article’s sources appear biased against exclusions, and nothing seems to have been fact-checked. Important context also appears to be missing. I will try not to quote the whole article, but most of it is terrible.

Getting it wrong about race and exclusions

The Observer’s story focuses on a young boy called Sam.

Sam, who lives on a council estate with his Cameroonian mother and has been diagnosed with ADHD and autism, is among the most likely ­children in the country to be thrown out of school.

This struck me as an odd claim. In the most recent exclusion figures (2022/23) black African boys have an exclusion rate of 0.085%. This is less than half the exclusion rate of 0.174% for white British boys³ and also less than the exclusion rate for all pupils.⁴ Also, boys with autism do not usually have an exclusion rate above the rate for boys in general. There are no figures for ADHD (although I don't have the 2022/23 figures for this yet). So what does this claim refer to? The article elaborates:

Children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), those on free school meals and black children are among those who are significantly more likely to be permanently excluded.

The claim about SEND is true, but this is mainly a result of secondary schools identifying badly behaved children as SEMH⁵. This may be the case here, but the article does not say Sam has been identified as SEMH. Nobody should be surprised that children identified as SEMH because of their bad behaviour are more likely to experience an outcome (exclusion) that also results from bad behaviour.

The claim about black children is completely false. Black pupils are significantly less likely to be excluded than white British pupils. This claim was so outrageous that it was given a Community Note when it appeared on Twitter. The article has since been amended to read:

Children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), those on free school meals and black ­Caribbean children [my emphasis] are among those who are significantly more likely to be permanently excluded.

Black Caribbean pupils do have a higher rate of exclusion than white British children. However, Sam is not black Caribbean; his mother is from Cameroon. The Observer has replaced a statistical error with a geographical one.

Eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM) is a major risk factor for exclusion. However, it is more of a risk factor for white British boys than boys from ethnic minorities. Black African boys on FSM have an exclusion rate of 0.11%. This is the same as the level of exclusions for all pupils, and is much lower than the exclusion rate for all boys (0.15%).⁶

Despite the removal of the first claim about black boys in the article, no change was made to a claim made by an activist lawyer later in the story that:

“Behaviour that arises from unmet additional needs is often profiled by schools as black boys being more violent.”

How is Sam the victim here?

The strangest aspect of the story is that Sam obviously does need to be permanently excluded, even in the Observer’s biased account of how he came to be excluded. At his first school, he had “collapsed on the floor screaming” for reasons that were not explained. At his second school:

His grades and class reports were good but, ­halfway through the year, a girl who had been bullying Sam pushed him and he shoved her back. The school permanently excluded him for assaulting a teacher who then physically restrained him.

“When I got there, he was in floods of tears,” his mother said. “He had lashed out but not in anger. He was scared.”

There is no opportunity for the assaulted girl to tell her side of the story, and no indication that this is anything other than the version of events Sam’s mother wants to be believed. And even in this version of events, it sounds like Sam is violent and out of control, and probably better off out of mainstream. It should also be noted that it is male violence against a girl (perhaps also against a female teacher) that is being excused. In no other context would journalists consider it okay to claim that violent males can't stop themselves from attacking females. Surely, even the world's worst education journalist can see this as a good reason to exclude? It doesn't matter how much Sam’s mother thinks he's a good boy really; girls and teachers deserve to be safe.

To be Continued…

In Part 2, I will look at some incorrect statistics in the article, and examine whether the problem of “boys like Sam” really does require the services of “200 lawyers”.

1. Department for Education.

2. Or that some of the “experts” were edutwitter trolls.

3. These statistics are calculated from the response to a FOI request I made. I am happy to share the data, if you contact me. Assume any other statistics I use that subdivide ethnicity by sex or FSM status come from the same source.

4. The DfE website gives the exclusion rate for all pupils as 0.11%.

5. Social, Emotional and Mental Health Difficulties.

6. I suppose Anna Fazackerly may believe Sam to be Black Caribbean. Black Caribbean boys on FSM, do have a high exclusion rate (0.38%). However, even this is lower than the exclusion rate for white British boys on FSM (0.47%).