In state-run schools, and in private schools where at least part of the funding came from government, corporal punishment was outlawed by the British Parliament in 1986, following a 1982 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that such punishment could not be administered without parental consent, and that a child's "right to education" could not be infringed by suspending children who, with parental approval, refused to submit to corporal punishment. It became apparent that hitting children in school was morally wrong and now it is illegal. Permanently excluding a child is an act in which a school decides, plans and then executes the traumatic punishment of rejection. The similarities with the decision making, planning and then execution of a physical attack on a child are painfully obvious. There is no moral argument to justify saying to a child they are no longer wanted by the institution that is set up to act in loco parentis for a substantial period of that child’s life. The first objection to making permanent exclusion illegal will inevitably be that schools cannot cope with the behaviour of some children and they need to be able to safeguard other children and staff. In order to make permanent exclusions illegal this objection has to be answered to the complete satisfaction of both teachers and parents. If the law were to change then it would have to be accompanied by an increase in school budgets to ensure they are able to adequately fund the options that are available instead of permanently excluding the child. This proposal fully recognises that this is a pre-requisite and requires all those who might support this movement to sign up to ensuring schools are able to deliver their new statutory duty and ensure all their children receive a full-time education until their legal school leaving age. The moral argument for not permanently excluding a child is clear. If for a minute you ignore the reason for the permanent exclusion, then the action of removing a child from its school is a traumatic event which inevitable has consequences for the child. Put simply it is a rejection of the child by an organisation which is charged with acting as a good parent while it educates them. The act of a permanent exclusion (rejection) is not one a good parent would countenance and yet we allow schools to do this based on the excuse that there was no other option. We aim to prove this is a false premise which allows schools to abdicate all responsibility for a child who they were supposed to nurture and educate. To demonstrate the number and variety of options a school can already use instead of a permanent exclusion the following list (which is not exhaustive) has been assembled. 1. Managed move to another school 2. Move to a pupil referral unit 3. Counselling 4. Mentoring 5. Therapy 6. Move to a special school 7. Part time timetables 8. Alternative education providers 9. Colleges 10 Temporary exclusion while other options are sought. “But children who are permanently excluded are not singled out; it is only based on what they have done?” 78% of pupils who are permanently excluded either have SEN, are classified as in need or are eligible for free school meals. 11% of permanently excluded children have all three characteristics Boys with social, emotional and mental health difficulties (SEMH) but no statement are around 3.8 times more likely to be permanently excluded than a non-SEN child. SEMH girls are around 3 times more likely. Children in receipt of Free School Meals are around 45% more likely to be excluded than other pupils Black Caribbean are around 1.7 times more likely, and Mixed White and Black Caribbean children were around 1.6 times more likely, to be permanently excluded compared to White British children. Children on a Children in Need plan are around 4 times more likely to be permanently excluded compared to those with no social care classification Children who have a Child Protection Plan are around 3.5 times more likely to be permanently excluded. Children who are looked after are around 2.3 times as likely to be permanently excluded than children who have never been supported by social care. It is clear that if you are a vulnerable child, you are in far more likely to be excluded than those who are not vulnerable. It is perverse that the children in most need of stability, understanding and support are those who are far more likely to be rejected by the very people who are paid to prepare them for adulthood. This campaign seeks to make permanent exclusions illegal whilst funding and supporting schools to find and organise a form of education that removes the stigma and trauma of a permanent exclusion. The IRCT is starting this national campaign in order to encourage all schools, politicians and parents to come up with a different system than the current one which officially tells children they are no longer wanted by their school. Many of the children permanently excluded have already suffered Adverse Childhood Experiences. To officially inflect another trauma on these children is both cruel and unnecessary. All children permanently excluded are still legally entitled to a full-time education which the local authority has to provide. Why then does there have to be a formal rejection of the child in order to try and find suitable education for these children? Surely the organisation that knows them best should be central to ensuring any new plan addresses the needs of the child.

Covid and lockdowns has impacted the economy whilst parents have to ensure their children are educated from home. Many parents have seen their income shrinking but their costs escalating. The government has a big drive to provide laptops for children at home. Many schools have opted to provide iPad's to the children in school which they get an educational discount on when they purchase it. The children are forced to use these even if they have a laptop or iPad of their own at home. They are required to take these iPad's to home and use in school but if the iPad is damaged, lost or stolen they force the parents to replace it with a new one. The school doesn't replace it themselves with their discount and a parent is forced to pay the full price for it. The education minister needs to ensure that the children's education needs are met whilst also ensuring that parents is not unfairly targeted with additional unnecessary costs. Apple's policy currently does not support parents in K-12 situations and is unfairly discriminatory. This needs to change immediately. Microsoft is doing the right thing by providing this discount. Let's change Apple's policy by standing together and demanding a change. Please sign this petition so that we can help thousands of students and parents and get the government to change this profiteering by Apple on parents.

As a Youth Delegate and 22 year old student who believes in a decent standard of education to be delivered in result of my own challenges of still being denied of an education from 2017 till now which is 4 years of lost provision which was unelected.  Which I am legally lawful entitled to Education. Like millions of SEN families and younge adults. Which have to face these fights each day. That's why I came up with the idea of (The Claudes SEN Law)  Which will be acknowledged in the UK ~ The United Kingdom and around the world #spreadtheword  My Goal is 10,000 signatures.. the deadline to support is June 10th 2021. (Please all support @a_claude_2020 and The Claudes SEN Law!!)

This is important because as students we feel like we are not being listened to.

Sex Education has always been treated as an unnecessary subject and is sometimes not even taught by professionals. We believe sex education is an important subject as it is the only subject that everyone will use in their life and we believe the best way to do this is to make it a compulsory GCSE subject.

It’s important for generation to be educated on the Kardashian’s life and family. We are the future of the world and must be educated.

This is extremely important as students are receiving grades based off not a full years worth of work. It is also crucial as this year has been damaging in mental health to the extent where students need a break until Covid is in a better place. This will also help keep down rising infections.

During this pandemic, international students are paying hefty university fees for their courses. They are unable to find any part time jobs to support their living and further education in the UK. Landlords and university accommodation are charging them full rent without considering the difficulties which the students are facing due to frequent lock downs and joblessness.

For the mental health of parents and young students everywhere the wellbeing of those being sent to school unnecessarily because parents can not maintain the 3 hours a day plus uploading to platforms. especially when they have more than one child. Children in Europe do not a have the same pressures at this age. Most do not attend school until age 7. There is no difference in their future wellbeing or education at a level and gcse ages. Parents are being told to send their children to school if they cannot meet the 3 hours a day target. This goes directly against the advice of the national lockdown and attempts to reduce the impact of covid 19.

These young adults are paying dead rent plus utilities costs electricity etc. For being home due to a National lockdown. They are going to have to eventually pay back the said fees for university yet they are paying for a service they will not be getting. So that includes rent for property’s that are empty. Yet still having to be payed.

Students are currently being hit by the triple whammy of still needing to pay rent and fees, not being able to work part time and having reduced access to hardship funds due to increased demand. As a result of this lots of students simply cannot afford the data and broadband which is now required in order to keep up with their studies. These factors further exacerbate the pre-existing attainment gap between disadvantaged and their advantaged counterparts in Higher and Further Education. According to research by the Office for Students, across the UK in the first term 18% of students had their ability to study affected by a lack of access to the internet, a figure which is higher for students with disabilities, students who are the first in their family to attend university, student parents and students of colour. It is therefore critical that free data and unlimited broadband is made available to students so that students don't suffer from 'digital poverty'. It is time to provide Free Data and Unlimited Broadband to Students.

All people have been impacted by the coronavirus. However, students have invested in their education and have not received adequate teaching or an adequate education in general. Students seem to be the forgotten generation. It is time for the government to step up and resolve this.