Doc, I think we all know that there are naughty children and there are SEN children and there are naughty SEN children. It does not follow that children with SEN are naughty!
B00 makes a fair point. The difficulty is, the DM report does not detail whether this child's SE needs were behavioural or whether he was just downright naughty. (Of course, we all know that children without SE needs are NEVER naughty).
The schools I have worked with have excellent policies in place to help ensure that ALL children in their care get the best education. Inclusion is better for society as a whole - the alternative is the Victorian institution which is a very unpalatable thought. There is actually very little evidence to show that non SEN children have their education damaged by inclusion of SEN children - indeed, DT's link would seem to support the opposite. Apart from anything else, SEN has a huge range. It can go from School Action to School Action Plus to a full statement of Special Education Needs. School action or SAP may only mean extra tuition or one to one support for x hours per week in certain subjects. A full statement is likely to relate to children with more profound difficulties. Very often they have some lessons in a group as a whole and some in smaller groups away from the main classgroup.
We do not have access to the statements in this case (and bear in mind it IS the DM) to know the full story. However, if his dismissal was in any way unfair, I have no doubt that the tribunal will find it so and he will either receive a decent sized payout or reinstatement.