If you thought being sent to the headteacher's office was a thing of the past, think again - England's secondary schools have apparently discovered a new favorite pastime: 'internal exclusion.' New data reveals that the proportion of secondary students yanked out of regular lessons and plopped into these on-site time-out zones has nearly tripled in just three years, soaring from 5% in 2022/2023 to a whopping 13% in 2025/26. That's a 160% increase, in case you're keeping score.

The numbers, crunched by the school management system Arbor (used by 13,000 schools across England) and shared exclusively with the Guardian, show that the trend isn't exactly egalitarian. Disadvantaged youngsters are bearing the brunt, with over one in five (22%) being internally excluded at least once in 2025/26 - up from 8% three years ago, a 175% spike. Non-disadvantaged pupils? A mere 10% got the boot from class. And students with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) are also overrepresented, with 18% of those holding an education, health and care plan finding themselves in internal exclusion at least once.

Critics are raising an eyebrow, suggesting that these 'isolation rooms' - as they're sometimes called - might be a bit rubbish for mental wellbeing and could result in lost learning. Defenders, however, argue it's a nifty tool for behaviour management. James Weatherill, Arbor's CEO and co-founder, said: 'Schools clearly need effective ways to respond when behaviour disrupts learning, and we know from schools that internal exclusion can be an important alternative to sending a pupil home. But the scale of this increase, particularly among disadvantaged pupils, should prompt us to look more closely at what is driving it.'

Interestingly, this surge in internal exclusions comes at a time when official government figures show formal suspensions and exclusions actually fell last year. Weatherill added: 'We cannot tell from these figures whether one is replacing the other, but the divergence underlines why government needs a more complete picture of how many pupils are being removed from their normal lessons, for how long, and with what consequences.'

Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, defended the practice: 'Internal exclusions are never used lightly but only after other avenues have been exhausted. They are a step short of an external exclusion and are designed to keep the student in school with appropriate learning support.' Meanwhile, Lily Wielar, a researcher at the Education Policy Institute, expressed concern: 'Classroom removal has become a deeply embedded feature of behaviour management in England's secondary schools. We urgently need to know more about how classroom removal is being used, and to ensure that removed pupils have the same legal protections and transparency that apply elsewhere.'

Behaviour expert Tom Bennett offered a more sympathetic take: 'Internal exclusions are, of course, a form of inclusion. A way to show students who disrupt the learning or safety of others that their actions have consequences, but in a way that means they aren't simply sitting at home doing nothing, or worse, exposed to unsupportive environments.' Dame Rachel de Souza, children's commissioner for England, struck a cautious note: 'Excluding a child from the classroom can be necessary to protect other children, but every child should be supported to learn alongside their peers. Where that isn't possible, children should still be receiving a high-quality education as part of internal exclusion - and I'm concerned that might not always be the case.'

Fewer than 1% of primary pupils were internally excluded at least once in a year, with nearly 5,000 under-11s affected in 2025/26 - though the real figure is likely higher since Arbor doesn't cover every school. Unlike permanent exclusions or fixed-term suspensions, internal exclusions keep kids on site, and they're returned to class when it's over. The government, however, doesn't collect data on these internal exclusions, which seems like a bit of an oversight.