2026 3rd Place Essay - "An Evaluation of Race-Based Discrimination inSchool Discipline"

Congratulations to Ryan John-Baptiste, from New College Doncaster on achieving third place on the 2026 Justice Pathways Programme 'Justice Brief' Competition!

Prompt: "Studies suggest that some groups of students are more likely to receive exclusions or serious disciplinary sanctions. Focus on one protected characteristic (such as race, disability, or special educational needs) and explain how discrimination law is meant to protect students in schools. Then assess whether current rules and school practices do enough to prevent unfair treatment, and propose one change that could improve fairness in disciplinary decisions."

For the vast majority of British children, the experience of discipline in an educational environment is the first experience of authority, of consequence, and of law, detached from the emotional context which defines parental correction. For the minds of many children, the authoritarian command of the teacher carries none of the warmth of their prior reprimandings, with the transition from “because we love you” to “because I said so” being stark in the best of cases. From this, we can draw the similarities between the role of the teacher preventing disobedience in the classroom for the good of the class, and the role of the police in preventing crime in the community for the good of the wider public. However, this raises a crucial question: What occurs when the discriminatory practices exercised by the police are mirrored in educational settings? The legislation around this problem is unambiguous, as all schools in England and Wales are obliged to the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws harassment, victimisation, direct, or indirect discrimination on the basis of race. As publicly funded organisations, schools also lie under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which dictates under they have due regard to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between protected groups in their service. This creates a clear legislative sentiment which is just as against discrimination in the classroom as it is in wider society. However, as with much of the legal system, the recent case law is more complex. For example, in TZA vs A Secondary School (2025) where the mother of a Black Caribbean boy whom had assaulted two students on the same day, was excluded on the same day without opposition, driving her to appeal to the GDC, conduct an IPR, and finally go to the High Court, all of whom ruled that the exclusion was within the boundaries of both the Equality Act 2010 and the PSED, a decision which she appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled that the PSED does not necessarily override the authority of a headteacher to exclude a student of protected characteristics, outlining the PSED as a procedural duty. Although seemingly ordinary, this ruling upon analysis could exacerbate the  already disproportionately high exclusion rates, with Black Caribbean students  for example being three times more likely to be excluded from school than their  white peers. Firstly, the ruling demonstrates that schools can enact a minimal  campaign to comply with the PSED, and simultaneously continue practices  which disproportionately impact ethnic minorities, effectively diluting the  protective element of the PSED, allowing schools to take as little responsibility to protect their students as possible and allow personal biases to permeate their  decision making. In a less insidious, but still impactful consequence, the  proceduralist nature of this decision minimises the accountability of schools in  ensuring disparities between racial groups in exclusion are actively challenged,  meaning groups in overrepresented groups for exclusion, may remain  overrepresented, as schools now have a clear guideline for what is and is not  adherence to the PSED, and therefore less of an obligation to enact genuine  reform in their disciplinary proceedings which would reduce discrimination.  

Perhaps most poignant of all is the reality that this ruling, having established a  precedent in this area of the law, will be likely to demoralise the families of  minority pupils from appealing their own exclusions, reducing the legal  surveillance over the disproportionate exclusion of minority groups and  therefore allowing discrimination to fly under the radar, entrenching it deeper in  our educational system. The brand of systemic discrimination which rulings in  this vein allow to flourish, cannot be permitted to do so, especially in the  formative environment of a school, where oftentimes perceptions of authority  figures begin to take shape in the minds of children and adolescents. Therefore,  this calls for a solution which eliminates, to as much of an extent as possible,  the discriminatory exclusion of ethnic minorities which drives exclusion  statistics. In my opinion, a suitable solution would be to mandate schools to  send Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) to their local council on a biannual  basis for an in-depth review of their policy on behaviour, suspension, and  exclusion and how they intersect with the experiences of ethnic minorities at the  school. Through this approach, policies which are likely to disproportionately  impact ethnic minorities can be identified early, allowing for preventative  adjustments before anyone is unjustly excluded under their pretence. EIAs are  an established aspect of regulatory framework within the Department of  Education, being used in the School Accountability Reform upon the passing of  the Equality Act, therefore, their implementation on an individual school level  would be within the resources of the DofE, and would be likely to prove central  in monitoring the ways by which behaviour policy is implemented in schools to  prevent the discrimination observable in other outlets of state power seeping  into our schools. 

References

1. Equality Act 2010

2. R (TZA) v A Secondary School [2025] EWCA Civ 200 

3. Irwin Mitchell LLP, ‘School exclusions: Court of Appeal downplays the public sector equality duty in  the decision making process’ (Lexology, 14 May 2025)  

   https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=068513f3-9317-49e3-aabb-34905c2ebf18 

4. Harrison, S., Persey, O., Coram Children’s Legal Centre, Birdling, M., Pemberton, J., Sibbel, S.,  Brown, G., O’Mara, N., & MIND. (2025). Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R  (CWJ) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Lord Chancellor. In IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE  KING’S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/wp content/uploads/2025/02/Final-Judgment-AC-2022-LON-002669-CWJ-v-Director-of-Legal-Aid Casework-Lord-Chancellor.pdf 

5. Gillborn, D., Rollock, N., Warmington, P., & Demack, S. (2016). Race, Racism and Education:  inequality, resilience and reform in policy & practice. In Society for Educational Studies & University  of Birmingham, Society for Educational Studies. https://soc-for-ed-studies.org.uk/wp content/uploads/2019/02/GillbornD-et-al_Race-Racism-and-Education.pdf 

6. Department for Education. (2025). School accountability reform: Equality Impact Assessment [Report].  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68bffb7aeeb238b20672a869/school-accountability reform-equality-impact-assessment.pdf