Increase permanent exclusions and double Pupil Referral Units
Reform UK · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Increase permanent exclusions and double Pupil Referral Units” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Crime, justice & national security — Mixed picture
moderate · moderate confidence
Removing violent pupils from mainstream schools would make those schools safer in the short term, but strong evidence links school exclusion to later criminal activity, which risks worsening community safety over time. Whether expanded PRUs can break that link is uncertain given existing evidence of poor PRU outcomes and staffing constraints.
The evidence
- The policy proposes permanent exclusions for violent and disruptive students and doubling the number of PRUs to ensure schools can function safely. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will implement permanent exclusions for violent and disruptive students and double the number of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) to ensure schools can function safely and spread best practice.”
- There is a strong correlation between school exclusion and involvement in crime and the criminal justice system. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “There is a strong correlation between school exclusion and involvement in crime and the criminal justice system”
- Permanent exclusion has been shown to increase the probability of custody by 33 percentage points. — bi.team (media) — “Permanent exclusion has been shown to increase the probability of custody by 33 percentage points”
- Nine out of ten young men in youth offending institutions had reportedly been excluded from school — though this figure comes from a single non-independent source and should be treated as indicative only. — ceiglobal.org (media) — “nine out of ten young men in youth offending institutions had been excluded from school”
- Only 1.1% of students in alternative provision attained five A*-C GCSEs in 2016, compared to 53.5% in mainstream schools. — bera.ac.uk (academic) — “In 2016, only 1.1% of students in alternative provision (which includes PRUs) attained five A*-C GCSEs, compared to 53.5% in mainstream schools”
- PRU placements intended as temporary often become permanent, limiting reintegration chances for excluded pupils. — dera.ioe.ac.uk (academic) — “placements in PRUs often become permanent, especially for older pupils, limiting their chances of reintegration into mainstream education”
- Doubling PRUs would likely worsen existing staffing challenges for specialist teachers. — schoolsweek.co.uk (media) — “Doubling the number would likely exacerbate these staffing challenges, particularly for teachers with expertise in trauma, mental health, and re-engagement”
- The effectiveness of PRUs in consistently achieving positive outcomes and reintegrating students is debated. — dera.ioe.ac.uk (academic) — “the effectiveness of PRUs in consistently achieving positive outcomes and reintegrating students is debated”
Biggest unknown: Whether doubling PRUs and improving their quality can break the well-evidenced link between exclusion and criminal justice involvement, or whether capacity and staffing constraints leave excluded pupils on a school-to-crime pipeline.
Our reading: This policy produces two competing effects on O5. On the protective side, removing violent and disruptive pupils from mainstream classrooms should improve the immediate safety of schools for remaining pupils and staff — the stated aim of ensuring schools 'can function safely' is plausible on its face. On the crime-pipeline side, the evidence is substantial: multiple sources confirm a strong correlation between exclusion and criminal justice involvement, and one study found permanent exclusion raises the probability of custody by 33 percentage points. A figure suggesting nine in ten young men in youth offending institutions had been excluded is cited from a single advocacy-linked source and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive, but the direction it points is consistent with the multi-source E13 and the E15 custody finding. The doubling of PRUs is the critical mitigating factor. If PRUs effectively diverted excluded pupils from criminal pathways, the net O5 effect could be neutral or positive. But the evidence on PRU quality is discouraging: only 1.1% of alternative-provision pupils achieved adequate GCSEs; placements frequently become permanent rather than a route back to mainstream; and staffing with specialist expertise is already strained — doubling capacity would likely worsen this. Poor educational outcomes sustain the crime-pipeline. The short-term school-safety gain is real but localised; the long-term community-crime risk is population-wide. Both are evidenced, making this genuinely mixed. Magnitude is moderate because the custody-probability effect is substantial even if causality is debated. Confidence is moderate because the exclusion-crime correlation is robust but the counterfactual — how much better expanded PRUs could perform — remains uncertain.
Education & opportunity — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Increasing permanent exclusions will likely harm the educational opportunities of the most vulnerable pupils — who are disproportionately poor, disabled, or from ethnic minorities — since excluded children face catastrophically worse outcomes and PRUs are ill-equipped to absorb the extra demand. There is no evidenced upside strong enough to offset this harm.
The evidence
- The policy aims to use permanent exclusions for violent and disruptive students and double the number of PRUs to make schools safer and spread best practice. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “implement permanent exclusions for violent and disruptive students and double the number of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) to ensure schools can function safely and spread best practice”
- There were 10,900 permanent exclusions in 2023/24, a 16% rise on the prior year. — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “In the 2023/24 academic year, there were 10,900 permanent exclusions, a 16% increase from the previous year, with a rate of 0.13 per hundred pupils”
- Nearly two-thirds of permanently excluded pupils were eligible for Free School Meals, with their exclusion rate far above non-FSM pupils. — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “Nearly two-thirds of permanently excluded pupils were eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), and their permanent exclusion rate (0.33%) is significantly higher than for non-FSM pupils (0.06%)”
- Children with SEN support are over four times more likely to be excluded than those without. — catch-22.org.uk (media) — “Children with SEN support are over four times more likely to be excluded than those without SEN”
- Only 1.1% of students in alternative provision attained five A*-C GCSEs in 2016, versus 53.5% in mainstream schools. — bera.ac.uk (academic) — “In 2016, only 1.1% of students in alternative provision (which includes PRUs) attained five A*-C GCSEs, compared to 53.5% in mainstream schools”
- 90% of children excluded from primary school will not pass GCSEs in maths and English. — theguardian.com (media) — “Research indicates that 90% of children excluded from primary school will not pass GCSEs in maths and English”
- Exclusion is linked to increased risk of poor mental and physical health with potential impacts lasting a lifetime. — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “Exclusion is linked to an increased risk of poor mental and physical health, anxiety, depression, and behavioural issues, with potential impacts lasting a lifetime”
- Permanent exclusion increases the probability of custody by 33 percentage points. — bi.team (media) — “Permanent exclusion has been shown to increase the probability of custody by 33 percentage points”
- Doubling PRUs would likely worsen existing staffing challenges, especially for teachers with expertise in trauma and mental health. — schoolsweek.co.uk (media) — “Doubling the number would likely exacerbate these staffing challenges, particularly for teachers with expertise in trauma, mental health, and re-engagement”
- PRU placements intended as temporary often become permanent, limiting reintegration chances. — dera.ioe.ac.uk (academic) — “placements in PRUs often become permanent, especially for older pupils, limiting their chances of reintegration into mainstream education”
- The IFS and Resolution Foundation highlight that exclusions disproportionately affect vulnerable children, exacerbating existing inequalities. — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) consistently highlight how exclusions disproportionately affect already vulnerable and disadvantaged children, exacerbating existing educational and societ…”
- Exclusion is seen as a systemic failure to support children with complex needs rather than an effective remedy. — bera.ac.uk (academic) — “exclusion often represents a systemic failure to support vulnerable children with complex needs, including mental ill-health, unstable home environments, and learning difficulties”
- The Education Policy Institute indicates exclusion is often not effective in changing pupil behaviour if underlying problems are not addressed. — mentallyhealthyschools.org.uk (media) — “exclusion often isn't effective in changing pupil behaviour, particularly if it doesn't address underlying problems”
Biggest unknown: Whether doubling PRUs could genuinely deliver quality provision at scale, or whether chronic staffing shortages and poor outcomes mean excluded pupils simply fall further behind.
Our reading: The evidence points consistently in one direction: increased permanent exclusions worsen educational outcomes and opportunity, especially for the most vulnerable pupils. The policy's stated aim — safer schools and best practice via PRUs — is plausible in theory, but there is no evidenced upside in the provided research to set against the documented harms. The only positive framing comes from the policy's own stated text, not from research on outcomes. The distributional harm is stark. Exclusions already fall overwhelmingly on disadvantaged pupils (two-thirds are FSM-eligible), those with SEN (four times more likely to be excluded), and certain ethnic minorities. A policy of increased exclusions, without any stated measures to address these underlying drivers, will widen the attainment gap — the opposite of what O7 requires. The educational outcomes for excluded children are catastrophic: only 1.1% of alternative provision students achieved five good GCSEs versus 53.5% in mainstream, and 90% of those excluded from primary school fail core GCSEs. Permanent exclusion raises the probability of custody by 33 percentage points. These are not marginal effects. Doubling PRUs is presented as the mitigation, but existing PRUs already face inadequate accommodation, specialist staff shortages, and high turnover. Doubling capacity without solving these structural problems risks creating more under-resourced placements. PRU placement also tends to become permanent rather than a temporary bridge back to mainstream, further cementing disadvantage. On O7's criteria — school standards, attainment gap, and opportunity for poorer pupils — the evidence points to a moderate worsening, concentrated among those who are already worst-off.
Equal treatment & democratic rights — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Increasing permanent exclusions would fall hardest on children who already face disadvantage — those with special educational needs, Black and Gypsy/Roma pupils, and those from low-income families — deepening unequal treatment in education. The evidence on disproportionate exclusion rates for these groups is consistent, though the exact scale of worsening depends on how many additional exclusions occur.
The evidence
- The policy commits to implementing permanent exclusions for violent and disruptive students and doubling Pupil Referral Units. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will implement permanent exclusions for violent and disruptive students and double the number of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) to ensure schools can function safely and spread best practice.”
- Children with SEN support are over four times more likely to be excluded than those without SEN. — catch-22.org.uk (media) — “Children with SEN support are over four times more likely to be excluded than those without SEN”
- Nearly two-thirds of permanently excluded pupils were eligible for Free School Meals, with their exclusion rate far higher than non-FSM pupils. — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “Nearly two-thirds of permanently excluded pupils were eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), and their permanent exclusion rate (0.33%) is significantly higher than for non-FSM pupils (0.06%)”
- Gypsy/Roma, Irish Traveller, Black and Mixed-race pupils of Caribbean ethnicity have the highest permanent exclusion rates by ethnicity. — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “Gypsy/Roma pupils (0.46%) and Irish Traveller pupils have the highest permanent exclusion rates, followed by Black and Mixed-race pupils of Caribbean ethnicity”
- The Resolution Foundation and IFS highlight that exclusions disproportionately affect already vulnerable and disadvantaged children, exacerbating existing inequalities. — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “Organisations like the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) consistently highlight how exclusions disproportionately affect already vulnerable and disadvantaged children, exacerbating existing…”
- Despite being intended as temporary provisions, PRU placements often become permanent, limiting chances of reintegration. — dera.ioe.ac.uk (academic) — “placements in PRUs often become permanent, especially for older pupils, limiting their chances of reintegration into mainstream education”
- Official exclusion figures may underestimate the true scale of removal from mainstream education through unofficial means. — ippr-org.files.svdcdn.com (media) — “the official exclusion figures may underestimate the true scale of "functional exclusion," where children are removed from mainstream education through other unofficial means”
Biggest unknown: Whether doubling PRUs genuinely absorbs excluded pupils into quality provision, or whether placements become effectively permanent, determines how severe the equal-treatment harm is for affected groups.
Our reading: O9 covers equal treatment and anti-discrimination protections. The policy's central mechanism — increasing permanent exclusions — operates on a baseline where exclusion is already highly unequal in its incidence. SEN pupils, pupils from low-income families, and pupils from certain ethnic minority groups (Gypsy/Roma, Black Caribbean) are excluded at rates many multiples above the average. A policy that drives more exclusions overall will, absent any targeted safeguard, amplify this differential impact. The policy text contains no mechanism to counter the documented disparity — no requirement to monitor disproportionality, no SEN carve-out, no equality impact commitment. The stated goal of doubling PRUs does not address the equal-treatment problem: evidence indicates PRU placements often become permanent rather than acting as a bridge back to mainstream education, meaning the groups already most excluded face a higher probability of being tracked into a lower-quality, segregated educational pathway. This is a structural equal-treatment concern, not just an educational-outcomes concern. The magnitude is moderate rather than major because the policy affects a subset of the school population, and the direction of exclusion growth is already occurring without this policy; the marginal harm is real but not transformative of the entire system. Confidence is moderate: the disproportionality data is robust and consistent across institutional sources, but the exact magnitude of additional exclusions the policy would generate — and whether doubling PRUs meaningfully mitigates harm — is uncertain.