Stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions from school

Student attendance and engagement are fundamental foundations for student achievement. The level of stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions help provide indications of where engagement in productive learning may be absent and behavioural issues may be present.

In 2011 age standardised stand-down rates fell for the fifth consecutive year, and age standardised stand-down, suspension and exclusion rates are now at their lowest in 12 years of recorded data. Age standardised expulsion rates are equal with the previous lowest rate (from 2004). 

Schools continue to stand-down, suspend, and exclude more Māori learners than any other ethnic group. Male students are more than twice as likely to receive a stand-down, suspension, exclusion or expulsion as their female counterparts.

Date Updated: July 2012

Indicator Description

This indicator uses age-standardised rates. These are expressed as the number of stand-downs, suspensions and exclusions per 1,000 students enrolled. Most stand-downs, suspensions and exclusions occur at ages 13-15, and age-standardisation allows a fair comparison between different cohorts. In any given year the schooling population will have a different age distribution. By standardising for age we can compare across these different years. Expulsions occur only for 16 year-olds and above, so an expulsion rate refers to a number of expulsions per 1,000 students aged 16 or over. All mention of schools in this indicator refers to state and state integrated schools only.

Why This Data Is Important

A state or state integrated school principal may consider the formal removal of a student through a stand-down from school for a period of up to 5 school days. A stand-down, for any student, can total no more than 5 school days in a term, or 10 days in a school year. Students return automatically to school following a stand-down.

While stand-downs impact on actual opportunity to learn they are also a response to a wide range of concerning behaviours including drug and alcohol abuse and violence that are disruptive to the learning of the individuals concerned, and disruptive and unsafe for peers and adults in the school community. Stand-downs can offer an opportunity to reduce tension and reflect on the action which led to the stand-down. As such, if used in appropriate circumstances, a stand-down can be a positive mechanism for preventing escalation. However, its use should be part of a pro-active approach and should be kept to a minimum due to its inherent disruption.

A suspension is a formal removal of a student from a school until a school Board of Trustees decides the outcome at a suspension meeting. Following a suspension, the Board of Trustees decides how to address the student’s misbehaviour. The Board can either lift the suspension (with or without conditions), extend the suspension (with conditions), or terminate the student's enrolment at the school.

If the student is aged under 16, the Board may decide to exclude him or her from the school, with the requirement that the student enrols elsewhere. This decision should be arrived at only in the most serious cases. If the student is aged 16 or over, the board may decide to expel him or her from the school, and the student may or may not enrol at another school. Again, this decision should be arrived at only in the most serious cases. Excluded or expelled students may face difficulties in enrolling in other schools. This may result in students:

• accessing correspondence schooling through Te Aho o te Kura Pounamu,
• entering Alternative Education provision (for excluded students),
• dropping out of the education system,
• entering tertiary study or employment.

In 2011, Board of Trustees’ decided to lift 42% of all suspensions. Around 9 out of 10 of these were lifted with conditions placed on the student. The decision to extend the suspension, exclude or expel was made in 16.4%, 33.6% and 4.3% of cases respectively.

Research emphasises the importance of pro-active partnerships with parents and a strategy focused on both achievement and behaviour. Approaches that are focused only on disciplinary or pastoral responses have been found to be ineffective for positive outcomes. Positive Behaviour for Learning, released in 2009, is a major shift in the management of disruptive behaviour in the education system. It provides proactive support for parents, teachers and schools that benefit everyone. The result will be better learning environments for all learners and staff, improved teacher ability to support children’s behaviour and emotional needs, improved engagement in learning, a lift in achievement for learners and an increase in teacher confidence and satisfaction.

The Ministry of Education’s (2009) publication Ka Hikitia - Managing for Success: The Māori Education Strategy 2008 – 2012, emphasized that relationships between teachers and Māori students are at the heart of learner engagement and achievement and that the system has been inequitable for Māori learners.

How We Are Going

Stand-downs

The majority of stand-downs occurred for students aged 13 to 15, accounting for 61.9% of all stand-downs. The rate was the highest for age 14 (75.8 stand-downs per 1,000 students). This substantial variation is why analysis is undertaken using age standardised data

Stand-down rates, by age (2011)

Suspensions

The incidence of suspensions has decreased by 33% over the last 12 years, from an age-standardised rate of 7.9 suspensions per 1,000 students in 2000, to 5.2 suspensions per 1,000 in 2011. This is the lowest suspension rate in the 12 years of reported data.

There were 3,748 suspension cases in 2011 which were received by 3,449 different students. This equates to 0.5% of the total student population receiving suspensions. Of those students suspended during 2011, 91.9% were suspended only once.

In 2011, 13.9% of all secondary schools did not use suspensions as a part of a behaviour management programme, compared to 86.1% of all primary schools.

Schools are suspending more Māori students than any other ethnic group. In 2011, the age-standardised suspension rate for Māori students (11.4 suspensions per 1,000) was over twice as high as for Pasifika students (5.4 suspensions per 1,000) and 3.4 times as high as for European/Pākehā (3.4 suspensions per 1,000). The suspension rate for Asian students is the lowest in New Zealand. However, the suspension rates for Māori are decreasing (from 19.2 per 1000 in 2000, to 11.4 in 2011).

Age-standardised suspension rates by ethnic group (2000 to 2011)

There is a clear correlation between the socio-economic mix of the school the student attended and age-standardised suspension rates. Students from schools in the lowest quintile (deciles 1 and 2) are 5 times more likely to be suspended from school than students in the highest quintile (deciles 9 and 10).

When considering age-standardised suspension rates by quintile the general pattern for the different ethnic groups largely remains. Age-standardised suspension rates are highest for Māori and Pasifika in each quintile, except in quintile 1 schools where the European/Pākehā rate is higher than that of Pasifika.

Age-standardised suspension rates by ethnic group and school quintile (2011)

Males receive suspensions more frequently than females. In 2011, the male age-standardised suspension rate was 2.7 times that of females. This is similar to the relationship seen for stand-downs.

In 2011, continual disobedience was the main reason for suspensions (25.7%), with an age standardised rate of 1.3 per 1000 students. The second main reason was drugs (including substance abuse) at 1.2 per 1000 students (22.6% of total). Along with physical assault on other students (1.0 per 1000 students or 18.9%), these three behaviours made up over two-thirds of all suspensions. “Other” behaviours included sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, weapons and other harmful and dangerous behaviours. 

Age-standardised rate per 1,000 students of suspensions, by behaviour (2000-2011)

Note: “Other” behaviours included sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, weapons and other harmful and dangerous behaviours.
Year	Continual Disobedience	Drugs (Including Substance Abuse)	Physical Assault on Other Students	Physical Assault on Staff	Verbal Assault on Other Students	Verbal Assault on Staff	Smoking or Alcohol	Theft, Vandalism or Arson	Other	Total
2000	1.9	2.4	1.2	0.2	0.1	0.5	0.4	0.7	0.6	7.9
2001	1.7	2.4	1.0	0.2	0.1	0.4	0.4	0.6	0.5	7.3
2002	1.8	2.2	1.1	0.2	0.1	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.6	7.3
2003	1.6	1.9	1.0	0.3	0.1	0.5	0.3	0.6	0.7	6.9
2004	1.7	1.7	1.2	0.2	0.1	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.6	6.6
2005	1.8	1.8	1.3	0.3	0.1	0.4	0.2	0.5	0.7	7.1
2006	1.9	1.4	1.3	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.3	0.6	0.7	6.9
2007	1.8	1.3	1.2	0.3	0.0	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.7	6.5
2008	1.8	1.1	1.2	0.3	0.0	0.3	0.2	0.5	0.6	6.1
2009	2.0	1.5	1.1	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.5	0.7	6.6
2010	1.4	1.6	1.0	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.7	5.9
2011	1.3	1.2	1.0	0.2	0.1	0.3	0.1	0.4	0.6	5.2

The majority of suspensions occurred for students aged 13 to 15, accounting for 67.6% of all suspensions. The rate was the highest for students aged 15 (18.3 suspensions per 1,000 in 2011). This substantial variation is why analysis is undertaken using age standardised data.

Suspension rates, by age (2011)

Exclusions and expulsions

The rates of exclusion have remained relatively constant over the last 12 years. However, 2011 saw the lowest exclusion rate in those years. The age-standardised exclusion rate was 2.1 exclusions per 1,000 students. Because of the small numbers that are expelled or excluded in some of the ethnic groups, small variations can cause quite large changes in age standardised rates.

Schools are excluding Māori students more than any other ethnic group. In 2011, the age-standardised exclusion rate for Māori (4.6 exclusions per 1,000) was 2.1 times higher than for Pasifika (2.2 exclusions per 1,000), and 3.3 times as high as for European/Pākehā (1.4 exclusions per 1,000). The age-standardised exclusion rate for Asian students is the lowest of all ethnic groups. 

With expulsions, the overall age-standardised rate dropped, from 2.1 expulsions per 1,000 in 2010 to 1.6 expulsions per 1,000 in 2011. This is level with the age standardised rate of 2004 as the lowest rate in the last 12 years.

Schools are expelling more Pasifika students than any other group. The age-standardised expulsion rate for Pasifika (3.3 expulsions per 1,000) was closest to the Maori rate (2.8 expulsions per 1,000), while European/Pākehā rate was 0.9 expulsions per 1,000. Asians had the lowest expulsion rate of all ethnic groups.

Age-standardised expulsion rates by ethnic group (2000 to 2011)

Schools exclude and expel more male students than female students. In 2011, the age-standardised exclusion rate was 2.7 times higher for males than for females, while the age-standardised expulsion rate was 4.3 times higher.

There is still a clear correlation between the socio-economic mix of the school the student attended and age-standardised exclusion rates. Students from the lowest quintile schools are 5 times more likely to be excluded than students in the highest quintile (deciles 9 and 10).

Age-standardised exclusion rates by ethnic group and school quintile (2011)

When considering age-standardised exclusion rates by quintile, rates were highest for Māori in each quintile. Rates were second highest for European/Pākehā in quintiles 1 and 3, and second highest for Pasifika in quintiles 2, 4 and 5.

The relationship between school quintile and age-standardised expulsion rates is similar to that for exclusions; however the differences are not so pronounced. Students from quintile 1 schools were 2.5 times more likely to be expelled from school than students in the highest quintile schools.

In 2011, continual disobedience was the main reason for exclusions, accounting for 33.3% of all exclusions with an age standardised rate of 0.7 per 1000 students. Physical assault on other students (17.4%) was second most prevalent with an age standardised rate of 0.4 per 1000 students excluded. The third most prevalent reason was drugs (including substance abuse) with an age standardised rate of 0.3 per 1000 students.

Drugs (including substance abuse) were the main reason for expulsions in 2011, accounting for 25.3% of expulsions. The second most prevalent reason for expulsion was physical assault on other students (22.8%). The third most prevalent reason was continual disobedience at 22.2%. Each of these reasons had age standardised rates of 0.4 per 1000 students.

Age-standardised rate per 1,000 students of exclusions, by behaviour (2000-2011)

Note: “Other” behaviours included sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, weapons and other harmful and dangerous behaviours.
Year	Continual Disobedience	Drugs (Including Substance Abuse)	Physical Assault on Other Students	Physical Assault on Staff	Verbal Assault on Other Students	Verbal Assault on Staff	Smoking or Alcohol	Theft, Vandalism or Arson	Other	Total
2000	0.9	0.6	0.5	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	2.7
2001	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.3
2002	0.8	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.5
2003	0.8	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.4
2004	0.8	0.4	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.3
2005	0.9	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.5
2006	0.9	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.4
2007	0.8	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.3
2008	0.9	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.2	2.2
2009	1.0	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.4
2010	0.7	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.3	2.3
2011	0.7	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	2.1

Age-standardised rate per 1,000 students of expulsions, by behaviour (2000-2011)

Note: “Other” behaviours included sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, weapons and other harmful and dangerous behaviours.
Year	Continual Disobedience	Drugs (Including Substance Abuse)	Physical Assault on Other Students	Physical Assault on Staff	Verbal Assault on Other Students	Verbal Assault on Staff	Smoking or Alcohol	Theft, Vandalism or Arson	Other	Total
2000	0.6	0.8	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.1	0.3	0.2	2.5
2001	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	2.0
2002	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	2.1
2003	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	2.1
2004	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	1.6
2005	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	1.8
2006	0.5	0.2	0.3	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.3	1.8
2007	0.5	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	2.0
2008	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	1.7
2009	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	2.0
2010	0.5	0.7	0.3	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.3	2.1
2011	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	1.6

Where To Find Out More

There were 20,146 stand-down cases in 2009, which were received by 15,848 different students. This equates to 2.2% of the student population receiving stand-downs and 78.7% of stand-downs being single instances.

In 2009, 71.3% of stand-downs took place in secondary schools. Only 5.7% of secondary schools did not use stand-downs compared to 55.8% of primary schools

To obtain information about other forms of student disengagement consider the following indicators:

• Truancy from school
• Non-enrolled students
• Early leaving exemptions.

The Ministry of Education has established an Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis Programme to systematically identify, evaluate, analyse, synthesise and make accessible, relevant evidence linked to a range of learner outcomes. Evidence about what works for this indicator can be found on the following website http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/themes/BES. The following Best Evidence Syntheses are relevant to this indicator:

• Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis
• The Complexity of Community and Family Influences on Children's Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis.
• Teacher Professional Learning and Development

References

• Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
• Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J. and Biddulph, C. (2003). The Complexity of Community and Family Influences on Children's Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis Wellington: Ministry of Education.
• Bishop, R and Berryman M (2007). Culture Speaks: Cultural Relationships and Classroom Learning . Huia Publishers
  
• Hattie, J. (Oct, 2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence? Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality.
  
• Hattie, J. (April, 1999). Influences on Student Learning. Inaugural Professorial Lecture, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
  
• Hughes, D. et al. (1999). Do Schools Make a Difference?: Hierarchical Linear Modelling of School Certificate Results in 23 Schools: The Smithfield Project, Phase Three: Eighth Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington.
  
• Ministry of Education (2009). Guidelines for Principals and Boards of Trustees on Stand-downs, Suspensions, Exclusions and Expulsions. Part 1: Legal Options and Duties. Wellington: Ministry of Education
  
• Ministry of Education (2009). Good Practice Guidelines for Principals and Boards of Trustees for Managing Behaviour that May or May not Lead to Stand-downs, Suspensions, Exclusions and Expulsions. Part 2: Wellington: Ministry of Education
  
• Ministry of Education (2008). Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success: The Māori Education Strategy 2008-2012. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  
• Partington, G. (2001). Student Suspensions: The Influence on Students and their Parents. Australian Journal of Education, 45, (3), 323-340.
  
• UK Office of Standards in Education. (2001). Improving Attendance and Behaviour in Secondary Schools. Strategies to Promote Educational Inclusion. StrateLondon: Office for Standards in Education.