Very young children are being excluded from primary school because of their aggressive and sexual behaviour, an Ofsted report says.

The schools receive inadequate support from local authorities in some cases, or cannot afford the alternative strategies that help troubled young children to cope with school.

Some have repeatedly removed children under the age of 7, for fixed periods or permanently, although the total numbers of exclusions are still low for this age group. Reasons for exclusion included biting, chair-throwing and inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Earlier this month The Times exposed the extent to which children as young as 4 were being excluded, after a survey of local authorities.

The Ofsted report, published today, paints a picture of some schools struggling to cope with the disturbed behaviour of children from complex backgrounds.

Some of the children had been exposed to domestic violence, sexual abuse, poverty or a parent’s illness. One boy had seen his mother killed in a refugee camp.

The report criticises the Government for not collecting enough data on exclusions. This has resulted in an “incomplete picture” of what has been happening to children aged 7 and under, it says.

Primary schools did not always receive adequate support from the local authority, in addressing children’s mental health needs or getting specialist support for overtly sexual behaviour.

Early intervention, and strategies such as “nurture groups” (small supportive groups) were highly effective, but schools often could not afford to put these in place. Those that managed to reduce the number of exclusions had all taken a strong line on low-level disruptive behaviour. Two groups of infant and primary schools were selected for the survey: one where the number of exclusions was high and one that did not exclude children.

The report said: “What determined a school’s rate of exclusion was not its social context but the combination of its philosophy, capacity to meet challenges and, sometimes, the response received from its local authority and outside agencies when they were asked to help.”

It added: “Instability in terms of leadership and staffing was a factor

in five of the schools that had had relatively high levels of exclusions. Relationships with parents were pivotal in preventing or reducing exclusions.”

Christine Gilbert, the chief inspector at Ofsted, said: “Ofsted inspectors found that almost all children in the schools they visited knew how to behave properly. Only a small number of children found this difficult but, with proper guidance and support, the need to exclude them can be avoided.

“As our evidence shows, many schools are skilled at promoting positive behaviour and attitudes in all young children, and giving them a good start to their education. It is important that others can learn from this best practice.”

Case study

When Daniel Atkins was excluded from his primary school, he didn’t throw a tantrum. Instead he went home, curled up and slept for the rest of the day. “I always know when he’s upset because he goes to sleep,” his mother Hannah said. “But for a four-year-old to sleep like that. He must have been really upset.” In the end, he spent four days out of mainstream education.

Daniel loves reading, watching Madagascar and hedging his bets by supporting both Arsenal and Manchester United. His exclusion resulted from an incident in an after-school club, a complaint by Hannah and a mix-up over paperwork.

The school asked her to keep him at home, but she brought him in regardless, saying she was worried about her legal responsibilities for his education.

Hannah worries about the other excluded children that she sees on the streets during the day. “I think exclusion is wrong,” she said. “Keeping children in the education system is a lot more productive than taking them out.”

Times recommends

• ‘Obama effect’ pushes British pupils to US
• Over-subscribed colleges face budget shortfall
• End in sight for school tables based on test results