School closures: Europe explores new approaches

The stated aim is to prevent the period of exclusion from becoming a mere interlude devoid of educational content. The reform also introduces a high level of family involvement. Parents will be required to cooperate with schools and support services; failure to do so may result in administrative fines of up to 800 euros. This decision comes at a time when the number of suspensions has risen significantly: from around 950 suspensions in 2018–2019 to 2,187 in 2024–2025.

The Italian system, too, has gradually moved away from a purely punitive approach to school discipline.

Suspensions will continue to be imposed in cases of particularly serious behaviour, including assaults on pupils or teachers, incidents of bullying and cyberbullying, deliberate damage to property, and repeated breaches of school rules. In the most serious cases, this may result in exclusion from end-of-year assessments or examinations.

However, in recent years, the Italian system has introduced a review of the school disciplinary regime. Alongside the educational objective already enshrined in the Students’ Charter, Law No. 150 of 2024 has introduced a new framework aimed at making suspension a tool for fostering responsibility.

Presidential Decree No. 134 of 2025, which came into force on 10 October 2025, stipulates that exclusion from lessons for up to two days must be accompanied by activities carried out within the school, aimed at encouraging reflection on the consequences of the behaviour that led to the sanction. For suspensions lasting between three and fifteen days, however, initiatives promoting active citizenship and social solidarity are to be carried out, which may also take place at third-sector bodies, associations and organisations that have agreements with the schools. The class council may also decide to extend these activities even after the pupil’s return to school, in accordance with the principles of temporariness, graduality and proportionality that govern the application of disciplinary measures.

The reform has also given greater weight to the assessment of behaviour. In lower secondary school, the conduct mark is expressed as a mark out of ten, and a mark below six results in the pupil not being admitted to the next year group or not being allowed to sit the final examination for the first cycle. In upper secondary school, however, a mark of six for conduct has specific educational consequences: in the middle years, it results in the suspension of the assessment and the assignment of a project on active and supportive citizenship, to be developed from a critical perspective, the outcome of which affects progression to the following year; in the final year of the course, the same project must be presented and discussed during the state examination interview. A mark below six results, in all cases, in non-admission.

In Spain, the debate on disciplinary measures has been approached by prioritising educational continuity over the exclusion of pupils. The legislation permits temporary suspension in cases of serious behaviour, but stipulates that any measure must serve an educational and rehabilitative purpose, taking into account the pupil’s personal, family and social circumstances. The aim is not merely to punish the offence, but to facilitate the pupil’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the school community.

For this reason, even during the period of suspension, the link with the school is not broken. Schools may continue to set homework, exercises and learning activities to be carried out at home, in the belief that temporary exclusion from lessons should not result in a break in the educational programme. This is a significant difference from traditional models of suspension, which are often limited to physical exclusion from school.

In recent years, the Spanish government has focused much of its efforts on prevention, addressing the causes that can lead to problematic behaviour. National strategies to combat bullying and cyberbullying, the strengthening of guidance services, and initiatives dedicated to pupils’ mental health and emotional wellbeing reflect the view that many disciplinary incidents are linked to situations of distress, isolation or social vulnerability, which require educational rather than punitive responses.

The PROA+ programme also forms part of this framework; it is one of the main tools used to tackle educational inequalities and support the most vulnerable pupils. Although not specifically aimed at pupils who have been suspended, the programme has been linked to a reduction in absenteeism and an improvement in academic results, becoming one of the central elements of Spain’s strategy to prevent early school leaving and educational exclusion.

Within the European context, Poland is virtually unique. Under Polish education law, suspension from school is not permitted. The principle underlying this approach is that the right to education, guaranteed by the Constitution, cannot be restricted by a disciplinary measure that temporarily prevents a pupil from attending school.

This does not mean that schools lack disciplinary measures. Schools may impose various sanctions provided for in their internal regulations, such as restricting participation in school events, extracurricular activities, sports competitions or student representative bodies.

In the most serious cases, such as incidents of bullying, theft or behaviour constituting actual criminal offences, this may result in expulsion from the school. However, in most cases, this involves transferring the pupil to another school rather than interrupting their education.

The Polish approach reflects a philosophy that school should remain a place where conflict is addressed and managed, rather than one from which pupils exhibiting problematic behaviour are excluded.

France falls somewhere between the most lenient and the most stringent models. The legislation permits both temporary exclusion from the classroom and from the school as a whole, but for periods limited to a maximum of eight working days. Permanent expulsion may only be decided through formal disciplinary proceedings.

In recent years, however, Paris has developed measures aimed at reducing the use of simple exclusion. The most significant of these is the ‘mesure de responsabilisation’, which allows pupils to replace suspension with supervised activities either within or outside the school. The aim is to transform the sanction into an opportunity for reflection and the development of personal responsibility, whilst maintaining a link with the educational process.

For the most challenging pupils, there are also classes-relais, specialised programmes developed in collaboration with the youth justice services. These programmes are designed for young people at risk of permanent exclusion or dropping out of school, and aim to gradually rebuild their relationship with school.

Despite significant differences in legislation, a comparison between different countries reveals a common trend. Suspension is no longer regarded merely as a punishment. An increasing number of governments and education systems are seeking to combine it with educational tools, psychological support, empowerment activities or reintegration programmes.

Austria has chosen to make this approach compulsory. France is trialling it through alternatives to suspension. Spain emphasises the continuity of learning. Italia focuses on the educational role of sanctions and on strengthening individual responsibility. Finally, Poland prioritises the absolute protection of the right to attend school.

Behind the various models, however, the same question arises: how can we ensure safety and compliance with the rules without turning discipline into a mechanism for exclusion?

*This article is part of the European collaborative journalism project “Pulse”