Three children, who spent nearly 1,000 hours in “isolation” in single academic year, at centre of legal challenge against multi-academy trust

Gorse Academy Trust's isolation policy under detailed scrutiny during judicial review hearing in Leeds.

 

The implementation of an academy trust’s behaviour management policy has been under forensic scrutiny in court this week, Education Uncovered can reveal, after three children who between them faced nearly 1,000 hours in isolation challenged its impact on their education, socialisation and mental health.

One child spent nearly half of the 2023-24 academic year in isolation, while the two others, one of whom is autistic, spent 26 per cent and 17 per cent of their time there respectively. As a judicial review challenge opened yesterday, lawyers for the three pupils alleged that the punishments had not worked for these children, that their school had not considered the cumulative impact of the sanctions on them, and that the amount of time spent in isolation had had multiple damaging effects, including on one child alleged to have self-harmed as a result.

Part of the legal case against the academy trust running the school has been that the punishments the children received became much less frequent once those two who remained there had filed legal action, and that the behaviour of one of them in particular improved, as a result. Isolation, the lawyers argue, had worsened their behaviour, rather than improved it.

The children, aged 12 to 14, all attended the same school. They have brought a judicial review challenge against the organisation which runs it, the Gorse Academies Trust, whose leader has been one of the pioneers of the isolation policy in English schools.

Gorse is arguing that it does take pupils’ circumstances into account before issuing punishment, that its behaviour policies do work and that it is transforming a school which until recently was one of England’s worst-performing secondaries. 

The detail

The three children launched legal claims last year in relation to Gorse’s behaviour management policies. Gorse’s chief executive, Sir John Townsley, was featured 17 years ago in the TES about what was then presented as a novel concept: Sir John’s “silent ‘isolation room’,” as it was described then.

Judicial review proceedings were launched, with the High Court hearing taking place in Leeds yesterday and today. As the hearing began*, Education Uncovered appeared to be the only news organisation present.

The hearing heard how isolation is a major element of Gorse’s “Positive Discipline” behaviour policy. Lawyers for the claimants – the children and their families – highlighted aspects of the policy which can trigger isolation, including accruing 12 “negative comments” in a week, refusing to follow instructions, forgetting a school planner twice in a term, and “attending School with an inappropriate hairstyle,” for which three days in isolation follow.

“Isolation” itself involves pupils sitting at booths which are closed off on three sides, and not being allowed either to turn around or to talk to friends, including during lunchtimes, when food is brought to their desks and they must eat in silence. The day lasts from 8.30am to 3.10pm, and pupils can only leave for a small number of toilet breaks or, as the claimants’ lawyers put it, “short pastoral conversations”. The sanction means that children cannot have any contact with their friends at school during days when they are isolated.

If a child receives two warnings in the isolation room – which the claimants’ lawyers said could be for, for example, speaking or getting up without permission – they receive another day in isolation. This also happens if they walk out of the isolation room. Three warnings, or refusing to go to isolation, triggers a suspension, with all suspensions then being followed by three days in isolation.

The claimants’ lawyers also stated that the number of days in isolation increases, as a child receives each isolation sanction. The first time, the penalty would be one day in isolation, the second, two days, and the third, three days, with these counts then resetting every half-term.

Sir John told the TES back in 2008 that, at the school where he was headteacher at the time, Morley High, in Leeds, “very few people (less than 3 per cent)” spent any time in isolation. However, the claimants’ lawyers presented figures, provided to them by Gorse, showing that some children at their current school, including other pupils than those bringing this case – spent high proportions of the school year in isolation.

Data on use of isolation at the school

During 2023-24, 187 children, or 31 per cent of pupils at this relatively small secondary school, served at least one “isolation sanction”. As of June 12^th, 2024, 3,587 days in isolation had been served by children that academic year. Some 26 pupils, or approximately four per cent of the roll, had each spent at least 41 days – approaching a quarter of their academic year – in isolation.

“Lydia”,** spent 83 days in isolation during 2023-24, which her lawyers said was more than 500 hours, or 43 per cent of the academic year. She was suspended, in addition, for more than 14 days, meaning she was isolated or suspended for nearly 100 days, or more than half of the 190-day academic year.

During 2024-25, before her lawyers began legal proceedings on September 27^th, 2024, the pattern continued, albeit at a slightly reduced rate, with Lydia being isolated for 10 days during the first seven weeks of the current academic year, and suspended for an additional two days.

“Luke,” meanwhile, who is autistic, spent 43 days in isolation during the period of the 2023-24 academic year up to June 12^th, 2024: 279 hours or 26 per cent of the academic year, plus at least 20 days in suspensions. So he was either isolated or suspended for 39 per cent of 2023-24.

This pattern continued before legal proceedings were issued on his behalf, on October 22^nd, 2024. In the first three weeks of 2024-25, Luke was isolated for a further four days and suspended for two days.

Finally, “Elise” spent 28 days in isolation during the 2023-24 school year up to June 12^th, 2024: more than 180 hours, or 17 per cent of the academic year. This was in addition to at least 44 days of suspension, meaning that she was either isolated or suspended for 44 per cent of the academic year. Elise has since moved school.

Dan Squires KC, for the claimants, told the court that these isolation figures were likely to understate the true position, as children who received an isolation penalty during the day began it that day, then served the following day in isolation, but on occasion only the full day served was recorded as isolation.

The claimants’ lawyers do not dispute that each child had “at times, been sanctioned for serious behavioural issues, albeit the most serious incidents resulted in suspensions, not isolation”. They added, in the “skeleton argument,” provided to the court, that “it is also not in dispute that, as per the PD [Positive Discipline] policy, isolation was regularly imposed for “behaviour falling significantly short of serious misconduct”.

What education do children receive in isolation?

A point of contention in this case has been the nature of the education that pupils do or do not receive while in isolation. The children’s lawyers stated: “Children are provided work in isolation and may ask questions, but they are not provided direct subject matter teaching in the same way as children in a classroom; this is necessarily the case as different children in isolation will be at different levels and studying different subjects.”

Gorse’s lawyers described the situation in isolation more positively: “The air-conditioned rooms provide each pupil with a computer workstation and an opportunity to work without disturbance. The students [in the words of the school principal’s witness statement] ‘are helped and encouraged to work much as they would in a typical classroom’…Work is provided directly by the subject teacher and is consistent with classroom work. It is handed in each day and reviewed by subject teachers. This helps to ensure that the student is learning …and that the student is able to reintegrate without being ‘behind’ the other pupils even after multiple days of isolation.”

However, all three claimants allege that they often learnt little while in isolation, with all three then alleging that this contributed to them then struggling to cope with their work on returning to the classroom.

Alleged impact

The repeated use of isolation had serious impacts on all three children, their lawyers argued.

Alice Irving, for the claimants, said Lydia “spent more than half of the [2024-25] school year out of the classroom, including more than 500 hours sitting in a small booth, not being able to talk to her peers and not being taught. Her sister said this had affected her really badly, damaging her relationship with other people.”

In her witness statement, Lydia had said she “just stare[d] at the walls of the booth” and “[couldn’t] understand what they [were] asking [her] to do in the work that [was] given. Her lawyers said this was because she had needed, as she put it, “help and people to teach [her],” which was not provided, “and Lydia repeatedly received further sanctions for not completing work in isolation”. She did not think she was learning anything, it was alleged, and when she returned to class, she said she “[could not] follow what the other children [were] doing most of the time”.

She had said, in a witness statement, that she did not “really speak to [her] friends much anymore because [she’s] in isolation all the time” and “felt like an outsider”. The repeated isolation then made her feel “really stressed,” and “[w]hen [she’s] stressed it makes [her] angry, and then [she does] things that get [her] warnings, which gets more Iso.” Sometimes she walked out of isolation because she felt “like [she] can’t sit still and [her] head feels like it is going all over the place and…is going to explode”.

Lydia’s father, her lawyers stated, had said that repeated isolation had left her with “zero confidence,” and “[she] thinks she is stupid…because her confidence is so low she just thinks she can’t do anything”. It made her “incredibly negative about anything related to school,” so she “[didn’t] want to go in because she knows she will just be put in iso.”

Luke, his lawyers stated, who has “significant traits of Autism Spectrum Disorder,” “found it impossible to learn in isolation and frequently could not cope with the strict rules and ended up either breaking them or walking out, which led to further isolation or suspension”.

His lawyers continued: “Luke told his mother that he no longer followed what was happening when he returned to the classroom. He said he ‘feels like he is stupid’ and ‘feels rubbish about himself because he doesn’t know what the other children know’.

Ms Irving said: “Luke’s mother also says that, because of the amount of time he spent out of the classroom, he would come home and say that…his self-esteem was being destroyed….he finds it difficult to make friends and [because of time spent out of the classroom] would be anxious about losing the one friend he had left from primary school.”

The claimants’ lawyers said that, on December 12^th 2023, Luke had written an email to the principal, saying: “Please take my iso off. Iso makes me feel really anxious. Iso makes me feel stressed.”

The lawyers said that the principal had not responded. It was stated in the court that he had reacted by checking with a teacher whether the sanction had been correctly applied.

In relation to Elise, her lawyers stated: “Elise seldom completed the work in isolation, as she struggled to understand it. She told her sister that, when she returned to the classroom, she “[didn’t] know what she was doing because she ha[d] missed so much” and therefore “[did]n’t do the work and messe[d] around…then [got] into trouble for it.”

In her witness statement, Elise stated that isolation is “the reason that many children who are regularly put in it (myself included) hate school.”

Her lawyers stated that “while she has struggled with her mental health before, the School “and in particular Iso has made it far worse”. In March 2024, her mother had informed the school that “repeated isolation and suspension was very bad for Elise’s mental health and she was ‘self harming as a result’. Her mother had described her arms as resembling ‘a chopping board,’ her lawyers stated.

Ms Irving also told the court that Elise had self-harmed following isolation “on many occasions”. She said the principal had initially said that there had been no evidence of the school being told that isolation had been a reason for self-harm, although this “error” was admitted in a later witness statement, but that Gorse continued to maintain that the “connection [between Elise’s isolation and self-harm] “does not exist”.

Gorse’s lawyers said that, of three instances of Elise self-harming disclosed to the school, “only one” followed a period of isolation, to which other factors, it said, had contributed.

The legal argument

Legally the claimants are not taking action against Gorse’s disciplinary policy per se. Their challenge concerns how the policy was implemented in their cases, and specifically the argument that its use was disproportionate.

There were several legal grounds cited, but one the claimants’ lawyers argued is the clearest is the current Department for Education guidance, published under the last government 16 months ago, on “Behaviour in Schools”.

Under a section about “Removal from classrooms,” which covers isolation rooms, the guidance states: “Removal from the classroom should be considered a serious sanction. It should only be used when necessary and when other behavioural strategies in the classroom have been attempted, unless the behaviour is so extreme as to warrant immediate removal…As with all disciplinary measures, schools must consider whether the sanction is proportionate and consider whether there are any special considerations relevant to its imposition.”

One of the arguments used by the claimants’ legal team was that this guidance was not followed in their cases, and therefore that Gorse acted illegally, which Gorse denies.

The claimants’ case hinges on the word “proportionate” above: specifically that the cumulative use of isolation in these cases was not a proportionate punishment for these children.

Their lawyers argued that Gorse had not considered the cumulative impact on the children; whether or not the punishments were succeeding in their aims, which included improving the pupils’ behaviour, in their cases; and whether alternative approaches were possible.

They said: “Where a child is being isolated 30, 50, 80 times in a school year, it is for the school to consider the impact that is having, whether such a penalty is proving effective or counter-productive and whether there are more appropriate alternatives.”

They added: “There is no evidence of the School considering how being placed in isolation more than 80 or 40 times in a school year might be impacting on Lydia or Luke’s education, self-esteem or socialisation. This is despite concerns being raised that, for the [claimants], repeated isolation was making their behaviour worse, not better, exacerbating mental health issues, and resulting in loss of learning.

“In respect of Elise, despite her mother telling the school in March 2024 that the ‘cycle of isolation and suspensions’ was ‘very bad for [Elise’s] mental health’ and she ‘was self-harming as a result’, there was no evidence of consideration of the negative impact of isolation on her. Indeed, [the principal] denies any possible connection between isolation and self-harm requiring consideration.”

Gorse says it does consider pupils' circumstances before issuing sanctions (see below).

Punishment rates decline for Lydia and Luke after legal action begins

On the issue of “alternative” approaches, the claimants’ lawyers were able to point to what they were said were “very significant” reductions in the rate of sanctions received by Lydia and Luke after each of them began legal proceedings.

After his legal proceedings began, Luke had been isolated for 13 days during 2024-24, and suspended for three days, compared to 43 days and at least 20 days suspended “by a little later in the 2023-24 academic year. This was a reduction of around two thirds.

Similarly, Lydia had been isolated for 18 days and suspended for four days since proceedings were issued in 2024-25. The previous year, to slightly later in the year, the figures had been isolation for 67 days and suspended for 14 days. This, again, was a reduction of around two thirds.

The claimants’ lawyers stated that the school’s assistant principal had said, in an internal email in October 2024, that: “I don’t believe any real therapeutic support has been offered to [Lydia] to support her in breaking this cycle” and that “I’m very much at the initial stages of uncovering underlying SEND”.

The claimants’ lawyers added that there was a big change in the flexibility with which the school treated Lydia’s sanctions, before and after proceedings were issued.

They said: “Across the [two] 2022-24 academic years, [the principal] identifies one occasion on which Lydia was not given an isolation for conduct which it was said justified it. In the 6 months after proceedings were issued there were already 5 instances of adjustment, including multiple occasions on which 3 days in isolation were ‘adjusted’ down to 1. That had never happened previously.”

They added that, since Luke filed proceedings, “the School has made significant adjustments to the penalties imposed upon him, including multiple occasions when no isolation was imposed, or incremental isolation was reduced from 3 days to 1.”

His mother was firmly of the view that his behaviour had improved as a result. The claimants’ lawyers continued: “Luke’s mother explains that while he is ‘still the same boy, with the same difficulties’ he is ‘no longer being sanctioned or given a comment for every little thing’ and even when sanctioned ‘the sanctions are generally less harsh than they used to be’. Because he is being disciplined less harshly, he is happier and ‘becoming dysregulated less often’ and, in turn, there are fewer difficult behaviours.”

The children’s legal claim also alleges that the school has breached their human rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights. This states that people have a right to a private and family life encompassing “the physical and psychological integrity of a person, the right to personal development and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world.”

The children’s isolation and suspension had harmed their development, “causing each of them significant and sustained distress” and preventing them from “interacting and developing relationships with their peers over extended periods at the school,” said the claimants’ lawyers.

Gorse’s response

Gorse has argued that its policies have helped dramatically improve the school, which its lawyers described as the “worst performing secondary school in Leeds and among the worse in the country” until it was transferred to Gorse.

Following an Ofsted inspection, the school had been graded good. Gorse also pointed to the fact that the inspectors had specifically asked to visit the school’s isolation rooms, and had spent 50 minutes in the two rooms, including “a substantial amount of time which children who had served a period of time in isolation,” and specifically met pupils who had “served repeated isolations”. The inspectors, said Gorse’s lawyers, had also “reviewed the School’s data on sanctions, including data surrounding isolations, as well as investigating behaviour records”.

The inspection report, said Gorse’s lawyers, had thus specifically commented on good pupil behaviour. 

Gorse’s lawyers – its legal team includes Carter-Ruck, the high-profile London-based firm of solicitors -  also point out that the school's popularity “has been transformed” since it joined the trust.

On the specific legal argument around proportionality, and whether the school took into consideration the children’s individual cases when disciplining them, Gorse’s lawyers responded that Positive Discipline “allows for reasonable adjustments to be made to the sanction (as has occurred for all three [claimants], depending on the pupil’s ‘individual circumstances,’ which expressly includes SEND.”

They added: “Further, each isolation sanction is reviewed by the Principal, another member of the senior leadership team and a member of the pastoral team.”

They added that staff did take into account “all the circumstances, including, where relevant, previous sanctions” before issuing a sanction.

They said: “This is exactly the exercise carried out by [the school's] staff, particularly the staff members who review isolation decisions, albeit staff are not required to complete any formal worksheet or tick-box form documenting their analysis of proportionality and/or special circumstances.”

They added: “Staff consider the impact of sanctions on pupils, taking into account the pupils’ special circumstances at the time, including, where relevant, the child’s disciplinary history and strategic thinking by the School…this process leads to adjustments being made to specific sanctions.”

The two sides seemed split, however, on the issue of whether sanctions should be considered in terms of whether each individual punishment was justified, as the above implied, or against a question of whether the regime as a whole was working, for these children, with their lawyers stressing the latter approach.

Gorse argued that fully taking such considerations into account before every disciplinary sanction was imposed for every child would be “unworkable” – though the claimants’ lawyers said they were only arguing that this should happen in cases such as that of these children, who had received many days’ worth of sanctions.

In arguing that the court legally should be focusing on individual sanctions for each of the children, they also said that only the more recent instances, in the case of Lydia and Luke, were sufficiently recent as to be within the legal timeframe for consideration, while none of those of Elise were within this window. It listed specific sanctions for Lydia and Luke, including, for Lydia, “2 days of isolation…for walking out of a lesson without permission, screaming at other students, and then going in and out of the lesson several times,” and, for Luke, two days of suspension after he pushed and kicked another student “repeatedly during lunchtime while they were playing football…and then sought them out for the rest of the day”.

Gorse’s lawyers also argued that, in fact, the 2024 DfE guidance did not make it a legal requirement for schools to carry out the three-pronged assessment of “proportionality” - whether the sanctions were working, their impact, and the possibility of alternatives – that the claimants had proposed.

Gorse also denies that the children’s legal action prompted a change in its approach to sanctions, for Lydia and Luke. For Luke, its lawyers argued that it had been taken “a different approach to sanctions for months prior to pre-action correspondence as part of a wider, long-term, supportive response to his needs”

Lydia’s behaviour had also improved, they said, but in both cases improvements were because “the Discipline Policies are delivering results for children as they are designed to do, and as they do more generally (as evidenced by the School’s performance, and [Gorse’s] achievements at other schools)”.

Gorse’s lawyers added: “This pattern of improvement is not uncommon, as children who start in year 7 with very poor behaviour internalise the expectations of the PD Policy as they move up through the School. The School recognises and gives credit for the improvement in the children’s behaviour, even if their parents and legal representatives do not.”

On the issue of whether Gorse had breached the children’s human rights, the trust’s lawyers said the European convention had not been used in the past in relation to a school’s decision to isolate or suspend a child, and that past cases had established that it was not the role of domestic courts to “develop Convention law in this way”.

The case has been continuing today.

 

 

*I draw on the court’s deliberations during the first day, and court documents presenting the “skeleton arguments” of both sides, in this article. Where I say that “the children’s lawyers” or the “claimant’s lawyers” state something, or “Gorse’s lawyers” do, I am quoting from the skeleton arguments. The claimants’ barristers, speaking during yesterday’s hearing, are quoted by name.

**All of the children’s names were changed by the court to protect their identities.

 

NOTE: This article originally said that "Lydia" had spent "nearly 1,000 days" isolated or suspended during 2023-24. This has been changed to say "nearly 100 days".