When a child is suspended or permanently excluded from school, the obvious question is often:

“What did they do?”

It's an important question. Schools need boundaries, staff and pupils deserve to feel safe, and serious behaviour needs an appropriate response.

But racial literacy asks us to consider another question too:

Would exactly the same behaviour always be interpreted in exactly the same way if it came from a different child?

That's where the conversation becomes more complicated.

What does the UK school exclusion data tell us?

Firstly, we need to be accurate.

It isn't true that all Black pupils have the highest exclusion rates in England. The picture varies significantly between ethnic groups — another reason why treating “Black pupils” as one homogeneous group can be misleading.

However, there are longstanding concerns about disproportionately high exclusion rates among some groups, particularly Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Black Caribbean pupils.

The latest Department for Education figures show that England recorded 913,000 suspensions and 9,900 permanent exclusions during the 2024/25 academic year. Persistent disruptive behaviour was the most commonly recorded reason for both.

The data also shows something else incredibly important: ethnicity isn't the only inequality.

Children eligible for free school meals had a suspension rate more than four times that of children who weren't eligible. Pupils receiving SEN support had a suspension rate more than four times that of pupils without identified SEN. Boys were also suspended at substantially higher rates than girls.

So this isn't as simple as:

Black child + school = exclusion.

Race can intersect with poverty, SEND, gender and other circumstances.

That is precisely why we need racial literacy.

Adultification: when children are seen as older than they are

One issue receiving increasing attention in the UK is adultification bias.

Adultification happens when children are perceived as older, more mature, less innocent or less vulnerable than they actually are. Evidence and safeguarding reviews have raised particular concerns about its impact on Black children.

The case of Child Q provided a devastating British example.

In 2020, Child Q, a Black secondary-school pupil, was strip-searched by police at her school without an appropriate adult present. The subsequent safeguarding review considered adultification bias significant and concluded there was a high probability that practitioners had been influenced by it. The review described how she received a criminal justice and disciplinary response rather than a child-protection response.

Think about what adultification might look like in less extreme everyday situations.

A confident child becomes “aggressive”.

A frustrated child becomes “threatening”.

A child questioning an instruction becomes “defiant”.

A physically mature Black boy is perceived as intimidating rather than distressed.

A Black girl expected to handle difficult circumstances independently receives discipline where another child might receive nurturing.

None of this means teachers consciously decide to treat Black children unfairly.

Bias doesn't require conscious intent.

When does behaviour become “challenging”?

This is where unconscious bias and stereotypes matter.

Human beings interpret behaviour through everything we've previously learnt — family, culture, experience, television, newspapers, social media and wider stereotypes.

That can influence who we perceive as threatening, intelligent, troublesome, innocent or vulnerable.

Imagine two pupils both saying:

“That's not fair. Why do I have to do that?”

Is one “assertive” while another is “aggressive”?

Is one having a difficult day while another “has an attitude”?

Does one need support while the other needs punishment?

The words may be identical.

The interpretation may not be.

Culture matters too

Racial literacy also means recognising that communication isn't culturally neutral.

Tone, volume, eye contact, gestures, expressions of emotion and interactions with adults can carry different meanings across families and cultures.

That doesn't mean schools abandon expectations.

It means staff need enough cultural awareness to distinguish between genuine misconduct and behaviour they simply aren't accustomed to.

Different doesn't automatically mean disrespectful.

Behaviour policies can be neutral on paper but unequal in practice

A school might reasonably say:

“The rules are exactly the same for everyone.”

Good.

But that doesn't automatically mean the application of those rules is equal.

A behaviour policy is implemented by human beings, and human judgement enters the process constantly:

Was that threatening?

Was it disrespectful?

Was it deliberate?

Was the pupil remorseful?

Should I give another warning?

Do I believe their explanation?

Does this require a sanction, or does this child need support?

Two pupils can encounter exactly the same written policy but experience it very differently.

Exclusion has consequences

Exclusion isn't simply a punishment that finishes when the child returns to school.

Repeated suspension means lost learning, damaged relationships with education and potentially an increasing sense that:

“School isn't for people like me.”

During 2024/25, around 94,400 pupils in England missed the equivalent of more than one school week because of suspensions.

If particular groups repeatedly experience disproportionate disciplinary outcomes, schools should be curious about why.

Not defensive.

Curious.

So what can schools actually do?

The answer isn't lowering expectations for Black pupils.

In fact, that would be another form of inequality.

Schools can maintain high behavioural expectations while examining whether those expectations are being applied consistently and fairly.

That means:

  • analysing behaviour, suspension and exclusion data by ethnicity, gender, SEND and disadvantage — and looking at where those characteristics intersect;
  • providing meaningful racial-literacy and unconscious-bias training for staff;
  • examining subjective language such as “aggressive”, “intimidating”, “defiant” and “attitude”;
  • listening to pupils' experiences of behaviour systems;
  • developing staff understanding of adultification;
  • reviewing whether particular pupils or groups repeatedly receive harsher sanctions;
  • considering context before moving immediately to punishment;
  • ensuring Black children are recognised as children who can be vulnerable and need safeguarding too.

Schools in England also have legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against pupils, including in relation to exclusion.

This isn't about blaming teachers

Most educators enter the profession because they care deeply about children.

Racial literacy isn't about accusing teachers of racism every time a Black child receives a detention.

It's about accepting something far less comfortable — and far more useful:

Good people can still carry bias. Good systems can still produce unequal outcomes. And good schools should be willing to examine both.

The question shouldn't simply be:

“What did this child do?”

Sometimes we also need to ask:

“What did we see when we looked at this child — and why?”

That is where racial literacy begins.