Strict behaviour policy blamed for 'exodus of 500 pupils' from Ark Alexandra Academy in Hastings
An ITV News Meridian investigation has discovered that 472 children have left Ark Alexandra Academy in Hastings over the past three school years before the scheduled end of their secondary education.
The data, obtained via a Freedom of Information Request, shows that 28% of the children leaving the school prematurely were recorded as having Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND).
The Ark Schools Trust told us they have 'high aspirations for students' and 'work hard to support those with additional education needs'.
Labour MP Helena Dollimore, who has raised her concerns about the school in Parliament, described the numbers leaving as an 'exodus' and urged Ark to 'acknowledge the scale of the problem' and 'work with the community rather than against it'.
The Hastings & Rye MP told ITV News Meridian: 'Everybody agrees we need strict discipline in our schools but the way this is being implemented is causing a lot of issues and ultimately leading to children falling out of the education system.'
Laura Wallis removed her son from the school less than a fortnight after he started Year 7 in September 2024. She claims he was discriminated against because of his ADHD and autism – and was effectively forced to leave.
'Within two weeks of being there he'd racked up nearly four hours worth of detentions. He wasn't walking close enough to the corridor wall – that was a detention. Spatial awareness is one of the things he really struggles with.
'There was no support for both his physical needs and his special educational needs. Their no-nonsense policy pushes children out of the education system.'
The figures show that 39% of the children removed from Ark Alexandra are initially home schooled, rather than transferred directly to another school.
Laura Wallis's son lost 120 days of classroom education before being accepted into another school, where she says he is 'thriving'.
Staff whistleblowers have told ITV News Meridian that the school has a target that each staff member should issue 25 detentions per week.
One teacher said while student behaviour had improved since the new policy was introduced, staff and student wellbeing has been impacted as a result.
Helena Dollimore, Labour MP for Hastings & Rye, says she's extremely concerned
Nigel Woodcock said he removed his daughter from the school in recent months, after almost three years at Ark Alexandra, because of the 'immense affect on her mental wellbeing".
'I wouldn't even explain it as being a prison. The kids aren't allowed to laugh in the hallways, they're not even allowed to sit with their friends at lunchtime except on a Friday", he added.
Ark Schools declined our repeated requests for an interview. Instead the trust issued a statement, in which a spokesperson said:
'Ark Alexandra has improved rapidly over the past 18 months: suspensions have fallen significantly, attendance has improved, and students are making good progress in all year groups.
'We have high aspirations for our students and work hard to support those with additional education needs. Everything we do is focused on providing a great education for our children and seeing them thrive.'
Justin Wynne, District Secretary at the National Education Union, does not support detention targets
In response to the criticism of the detention targets, the Ark Schools spokesperson added: 'We monitor behaviour points to ensure the school's behaviour policy is implemented fairly and consistently.
'Staff are encouraged to award four times more rewards for positive behaviour – with the focus on catching students behaving well, rather than catching them out. This has helped us to create a culture of warmth and high standards.'
Academies are state schools not controlled by the local authority but by an academy trust, funded directly by the Department for Education.
The government is currently making a series of changes to the rules that academy trusts have to follow, to standardise curriculum, staff pay, conditions and recruitment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Trump's visit shows who the real King is these days
Donald Trump is showing European leaders who's boss, claims reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The visit by President Donald Trump has conveyed one important but overdue lesson and that is the emptiness of claims that the UK has significance in today's world. Instead, the true King of Kings rolls into one of his dominions, at our expense, to visit a new palace at Menie, and graciously agrees to meet minor dignitaries like Keir Starmer as long as they obey on issues such as the slaughter of children in Gaza, the demonisation of Iran and the doomed attempt to keep China in its box. Our Prime Minister, of course, bows the knee in pursuit of trading advantage. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In this he is not alone. The royal progress includes acts of obeisance from the EEC's Ursula von der Leyen and possibly our First Minister, though he at least may have something to say on Gaza so long as it does not affect the tariff on whisky. US President Donald Trump greets Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his wife Victoria at Trump Turnberry golf club yesterday (Picture:) James Scott, Edinburgh Change the signs Over the last 20 years, a new heterodoxy has prevailed. It has entered various part of society in all parts of the UK and the rest of the west as well. For example, guilt over sins of which we are entirely innocent, but of which some people's ancestors may have been guilty is aimed at the whole of society, and 'black lives matter' became so all-powerful that the English women's football team has apparently only just stopped 'taking the knee', which expressed atonement for the sins of American society, not ours! A new orthodoxy has found its way into 'new age' thinking and, along with other strands of thought – climate change, for example – became the new truths. Heaven help you if you disagreed, because 'the science is settled', even if science is never settled. If men decide that they are women, then they are women. Sixteen year-olds are adults, even when they can't buy cigarettes or alcohol, fight in wars or stand for Parliament, except when they aren't, when it suits the party that hopes to benefit by pretending that they are (no names, no pack-drill, Labour and SNP). Remember legal guardians to the age of 18? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Now, Museums Galleries Scotland (your report, 28 July) claim that the Supreme Court ruling on sex and gender could mean that museums may have to close because trans people, may have 'no facilities at all'. Under the Equality Act of 2010, all such places are required by law to provide disabled lavatories. So, either they are breaking the law by not providing such lavatories, or they are not prepared to put the words 'disabled and gender-neutral/trans lavatory' on the door. Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Injustice today Having published a hugely expensive report looking at slavery which took place hundreds of years ago against victims now long dead, Edinburgh University Principal Sir Peter Mathieson has pledged to take action, insisting that 'meaningful change' will occur and that the institution will 'learn from and repair its past'. Amid this apparent desire to appropriate the moral high ground, the University's deafening silence on current day human rights abuses, which it has complicitly supported lest it upset wealthy dictatorships, cannot go unmentioned. The University was quick to jump on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon in 2020, apologising for the death of George Floyd; it has, however, failed to condemn the Chinese government's genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing against Uighur Muslims. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Nor did Sir Peter Mathieson issue a message of support for pro-democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, despite the many hundreds of Hong Kong students at Edinburgh. The University's acceptance of £16 million from a Saudi Arabian billionaire prince to fund Islamic studies, and the acceptance of cash from the Kremlin-backed Russkiy Mir Foundation to fund Edinburgh's Princess Dashkova Russian Centre simply confirms that for Edinburgh University its easier to virtue signal when referring to the past, rather than taking action in 2025 to support real human rights improvements. David Tan, Edinburgh Sum problems June's figures for public sector borrowing came in at £20.7 billion, well above the OBR's forecast and City expectations. What's more, £16.4bn of this was accounted for by debt interest payments. Yes, that's right: £16.4bn in one month. We are borrowing vast sums to pay the interest on past borrowings of vast sums. The time has come for a national referendum on government borrowing. Doug Clark, Currie, Midlothian Respect for all Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Following The Scotsman's recent reports about the Sandie Peggie case, it appears that the relevant staff in NHS Fife have very old-fashioned attitudes towards the medical profession, with the belief that a doctor's word is infallible. Sixty years ago, when I was training, the belief that a doctor could do no wrong was gradually being challenged and, as young nurses, we were taught to question anything we were unsure about. While fully respecting the skill, training and expertise by all members of the medical team we worked together for the greater good of the patients. We also understood that we were all human beings and as such were capable of errors of judgment, vanity, arrogance or even deceit, as qualifications do not ensure perfection. The people who automatically condemned Nurse Peggie have shown their disrespect towards her, her unblemished years of work and to the nursing profession when, without further investigation, they decided a doctor's word was paramount. NHS Fife should be ashamed of the way they have treated a valuable and long-standing member of their staff. Dr Upton claims to be female and claims discrimination due to gender recognition issues. There must be an area available for a separate changing facility to deal with these problems so that everyone can get on with the work they should be doing with mutual acceptance and respect. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It is very perturbing to learn that, in an effort to maintain political correctness, some of the professional witnesses in this debacle feel unsure of of the gender that they were born with. I can't help wondering – if there were special benefits given to all redheads would I qualify if I dyed my aging locks? J Main, Elgin, Moray Water history In his paean of praise of water in Scotland I am surprised Stan Grodynski (Letters, 28 July), with his reference to Enlightenment figures (who must have got hydrated using water-caddies and taken action whenever they heard the cry of gardyloo!) does not mention another piece of Scottish history, the mid-19th century building of an aqueduct and tunnels from Loch Katrine to Glasgow, and in particular, that it spared its residents from the 1866 cholera outbreak, which killed only 68. Some 5,596 died from it in London. Maybe his silence comes from the fact that before building it, Glasgow had taken advice from experts south of the Border, Robert Stephenson and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. It should also be noted that microbiological safety did not drive its construction. Big reasons were meeting the needs of trade and increasing the number of street fire hydrants, needed to fight that good old Glasgow tradition: have an iconic building, burn it down. Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen Manx magic Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On holiday in the Isle of Man last week, it was exhilarating to see that there was not a single ugly wind turbine blighting the spectacular landscape. Nor did we encounter any potholes anywhere on the excellent road network. At one time a Scottish possession, this thriving Crown Dependency has its own distinct identity and ancient parliament. The island's language (similar to Irish and Gàidhlig) is being revived and its official status raised. Surely our left-wing separatists, trapped in an endless cycle of bitterness and victimhood, might learn something from the Manx success story? Martin O'Gorman, Edinburgh State of play So the SNP want to jump on the French bandwagon and recognise the State of Palestine. So what is a State? It's a politically organised territory ruled by a centralised legal government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Does that sound like Palestine? If the SNP want the best future for Palestine then you do not reward Hamas for the atrocities of October 7. The answer to such evil isn't the award of a State. A path to genuine peace relies on the expansion of the Abraham Accords, leading to a partnership between Arab States and Israel. This would lay the grounds for a future Palestinian State supported by its Arab neighbours. Lewis Finnie, Edinburgh It's a knockout The hilarity of the penalty shoot out at the Women's Euros, England v Sweden, covered by the BBC in Zurich, brought back happy memories of 'Jeux Sans Frontieres' to my generation. It also put to bed any notion that the women's game has now caught up with the men's game for quality. Yet more merriment was to come. ITV covered England v Italy in Geneva and, being oblivious and patronisingly ambivalent about the fact they were broadcasting to all four UK Nations, the commentary descended into utter ear-splitting incoherence as England got an unlikely equaliser. It was such a long way removed from the masterful restraint of the late Kenneth Wolstenholme ('there are people on the pitch' etc) Wembley 1966. John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing. Fife Write to The Scotsman
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Why I am sticking with Labour
In a packed fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in 1980, cigarette smoke hung thickly beneath dim, flickering lights. Amid the hum of tense whispers and shifting chairs, Shirley Williams stood, resolute and defiant, her voice slicing through the haze: 'We are going to fight to save the party, and by God we think we can. We are going to start fighting for a Labour Party worthy of the name. Yet barely a year later, Williams and her allies – soon to be known infamously as the Gang of Four – left Labour altogether, founding the new Social Democratic Party. Why begin an article about my decision to remain within Labour with a quote that, in hindsight, didn't even survive the year? Three reasons. First, because today I – and many others inside the Labour Party – feel exactly as Shirley Williams did when she uttered those words. This is not a Labour government worthy of the name. From its morally hollow alignment with a far-right US president amidst war crimes and probable genocide in Gaza, to its embrace of a discredited economic orthodoxy reliant on trickle-down myths, deregulation, and corporate extraction, this is not the principled, people-first politics we were promised. Add to this the normalisation of racist rhetoric about migrants and asylum seekers, punitive policies targeting disabled people – from threatened cuts to Personal Independence Payments to real-terms reductions in Universal Credit – and the introduction of some of the most draconian laws this country has seen outside wartime, including proscribing protest groups as terrorists, and it becomes painfully clear: something has gone profoundly wrong. Like Shirley Williams then – and countless others from both the left and right throughout Labour's history – I believe remaining in the party (as long as that option is open) and fighting for its soul is the right choice. For all its faults, Labour remains the political vehicle that has done more than any other to improve the lives of working-class people in Britain. That legacy isn't just worth defending; it demands our defence. Secondly, given the increasing fragmentation of British politics – and the very real possibility that the Labour-Conservative duopoly, which has defined our political landscape for over eighty years, might finally unravel – the events of 1981 now look less like a historical footnote and more like an urgent warning. The SDP failed on its own terms, but the two-party system that it aimed to break open never really recovered from its intervention. So, what, if anything, has today's Labour leadership learnt from the emergence of the new left party? What deeper forces – economic, social, and environmental – are shaping this moment? And how might we navigate the storm of intersecting crises we now face? Judging by their reaction thus far: very little. Within Labour circles, responses have been defined more by dismissive sneers than serious reflection. But the hundreds of thousands expressing interest in the new party should serve as a profound wake-up call. This isn't a fringe rebellion, it's an indication that the foundations of our electoral system are cracking. Discontent of this magnitude doesn't emerge from nowhere, nor will it vanish if ignored. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even if you share the leadership's apparent wish that the left be locked away and forgotten, history demonstrates that suppressing dissent doesn't neutralise it – it energises it. Those turning toward this new party are not extremists or radicals, but ordinary people repeatedly told that their entirely reasonable demands (a fair economy, genuine democracy, and meaningful climate action) are dangerous delusions. That lie has a limited shelf life, and we may well be reaching its expiry date. Third, Shirley Williams' instinct in 1980 to remain in the party, was fundamentally right, an instinct shared by myself and many others today. The fight ahead against authoritarian and anti-democratic forces will only intensify. How and where we engage in this struggle must be strategic. Effective strategy against a capable and adaptive opponent demands keeping as many paths open as possible, resisting premature narrowing unless the landscape unmistakably demands it. This strategic calculation lies at the heart of current tensions. Many see this as the decisive moment to commit fully to the new left project. They might well be correct. And those of us still holding the line within Labour, even cautiously, may yet be proven wrong. But we must also acknowledge the unknowns surrounding the new project. Its political culture remains largely untested. There is a genuine risk of fragmentation and recrimination. Prudence advises us to maintain fallback positions and avoid burning bridges prematurely. We must recognise there are many fronts in this fight. I understand deeply the anger towards this Labour government – anger shared by many still within the party. Yet dismissing those who choose to engage within Labour, the Greens, or elsewhere neither advances our cause nor aligns with the pluralist politics this moment demands. We all have roles to play. Thousands choose to fight from within Labour; others do so externally, whether in a political party or campaign groups and broader civil society. What matters is mutual support and solidarity among all committed to democracy, social and climate justice, pluralism, and human rights – across parties and factions. Ultimately, my choice is guided by strategic judgement, not certainty. In these turbulent political times, certainty is a luxury none of us possess. Yet, I sincerely hope the path I've chosen contributes meaningfully and that, regardless of the routes we each take, we find ways to converge again when it truly matters. [See more: Revenge of the left] Related
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Tens of thousands at risk of poverty despite Labour's benefit U-turn, MPs warn
About 50,000 people who become disabled or chronically ill will be pushed into poverty by the end of the decade because of cuts to incapacity benefit, despite ministers dropping the bulk of its welfare reform plans, MPs have warned. The work and pensions select committee report welcomed ministers' decision earlier this month to drop some of the most controversial aspects of its disability reforms in the face of a parliamentary revolt by over 100 Labour backbenchers. These included the wholesale scrapping of proposed major changes to personal independence payment (Pip) eligibility that would have seen around 800,000 people no longer qualifying for the benefit by the end of the decade. The government also ditched plans to freeze the value of the incapacity element of universal credit for existing claimants, affecting over 2m people by 2029-30, though it kept in place proposals to half the weekly rate for new claimants. Labour had 'in the end' made the right decision, the committee said in a report. But it reiterated calls for the remaining planned cuts to universal credit to be delayed until their impact on poverty, health and jobs were fully understood. Ministers been left badly bruised by the enforced gutting of its bill, which was intended to save £5bn a year by the end of the decade. Keir Starmer, the prime minister, admitted subsequently that No 10 'didn't get the process right'. Although all existing universal credit claimants and new claimants with severe or terminal conditions will now be protected, from next year other claimants with limited health capacity for work will see monthly awards cut from £423.27 to £217.26. The committee chair, Labour's Debbie Abrahams, said, 'We welcome the concessions that the government made to the niversal Credit bill; but there are still issues with these welfare reforms not least with the cut in financial support that newly sick and disabled people will receive.' Abrahams said that on the government's own analysis approximately 50,000 people who claim universal credit from next April after developing a health condition or becoming disabled will be plunged into poverty by 2030 as a result of cuts. 'We recommend delaying the cuts to the universal credit health premium, especially given that other policies that such as additional NHS capacity, or employment support, or changes in the labour market to support people to stay in work, have yet to materialise,' she said. 'We agree in a reformed and sustainable welfare system, but we must ensure that the wellbeing of those who come into contact with it is protected. The lesson learned from last month should be that the impact of policy changes to health-related benefits must be assessed prior to policy changes being implemented to avoid potential risks to claimants,' added Abrahams The report also urged ministers to drop plans – currently out for consultation – to prevent young people aged 18-22 from claiming incapacity benefit. 'We share the minister's concern about young people being trapped in economic inactivity before their working lives have even begun, but we do not see why this means they should lose entitlement to universal credit health,' the report said. The cross-party committee welcomed the government's plans to review the much-criticised Pip assessment process, which it said was in 'desperate need of reform.' It applauded ministers promise to 'co-produce' the review with disabled people. A government spokesperson said: 'Our welfare reforms will support those who can work into jobs and ensure there is always a safety net for those that need it. The impact assessment shows our reforms will lift 50,000 children out of poverty – and our additional employment support will lift even more families out of poverty. 'The reforms will rebalance Universal Credit rates to reduce the perverse incentives that trap people out of work, alongside genuinely helping disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into good, secure work – backed by £3.8bn in employment support over this parliament.'
