THREAD

Heres some simple nuance for those who wilfully ignore the complex nature of such issues.

In every breathing moment I work to reduce exclusion. I am 100% against it. But if a child risks being re-traumatised by sharing a class with another, we have a duty to rethink. https://twitter.com/tombennett71/status/1320784989592653824

Does this mean we auto-exclude? No. We look at the case uniquely & decide if reintegration will be possible without further trauma. And distress goes both ways, because the excluded, believe it or not, may be ashamed of their actions & returning may not be in their interests too.

We don't throw the excluded child away to another setting. They don't become inhuman. If a child cannot return (or even if they can), a massive package of investment must be given to support them. If you cannot see how sexualised behaviour is a safeguarding red flag you need CPD.

If you don't support this child, you will see reoccurrence and more incidents. More upset. Exclusions stops your school seeing the issues, it doesn't stop the issues. If you really want to protect children you will back supporting all children. Its nuance and requires thought.

And the child who has been harmed? Needs massive support. Needs their voice heard. They need to feel safe. And they need to leading role in how this can be given to them.

So there it is - you can think about sexualised behaviour of children in schools in more than just a "victim-abuser" way. There may be more than one hurt child. And there definitely will be more hurt children if we just throw away young people out of sight.

I will never be pro exclusion and will fight to keep children in school every day. That doesn't mean I believe we should always keep everyone in school regardless of impact. By misleading the anti-exclusion lobby as such, you inhibit real debate and progress on these issues.

Misrepresenting lol oops