Hi, Not really a dilema as such, however i have just heard this figure quoted on tv by lawrence dallagio and george takei (or was it andrew ridgely!!). These two are nobly doing a cycle ride to raise funds for a youth development/social inclusion program. Let me first state i have no problem with this and hope it goes well. However, this figure was couched with well meaning rhetoric about schools 'giving up on students' etc. Without any reference to how many 2nd/3rd/84th chances students get in the current system, how much evidence is needed to get a child excluded permanently (or in some schools even for 1 day). Maybe there are some other percentages they could look into like..... 60% of new teacher quit after 5 years. 95% of students in state schools have their education adversely affected by the behaviour of a disruptive minority. 70% of the behaviours students get excluded for would get you arrested outside the school bubble. 80% of teachers are diagnosed with work related stress at some point in their career.* (*all figures quoted in the above paragraph are for example purposes only but probably not too far off the mark, i just didn't have the time or energy to break off mid rant and google it!). I don't doubt the good intentions of these two celebs. However a stint on supply in your average academy would help clear the scales from their eyes. People who last set foot inside a school as a pupil in the 70s and 80s do not seem to realise that the world of education has drastically changed. The days of tucker jenkins being excluded for not doing his homework are long gone! To conclude, when i as a supply teacher have the audacity to pull on an england rugby shirt at twickenham and deliver a team talk to the squad, or sing backing vocals and pretend to play guitar on a wham video then these two can lecture me on the implications of exclusion, and the challenges of inclusion! Rant over.