Appealing against Permanent Exclusion

Unfortunately I'm the mother of a child who has self harmed as a result of becoming fearful about going to school because of the behaviour of a small minority towards the other children in Y7 and Y8 - little things like flicking a lighter at hair, following home and taunting. She has also got upset because of the constant disruption to lessons and rudeness to teachers who try hard but nothing they do works so they give up. She goes to a lovely high achieving school which is heavily oversubscribed. There is a small minority who intimidate, disrupt and are utterly dysfunctional. One such child disrupts the other 29 and tends to ring lead a little gang. I cannot believe this thread and the level of support for those intent on destroying the educational experiences of others. Why should schools have to jump through a thousand hoops to exclude a little brat who is rude, breaks noses and attempts to damage property (so what no one was in the garden and no one got hurt, they may have been and it may have your child hit in the head with a stone). Disgraceful and antisocial behaviour which is a discredit to any school. For the sake of the education of the other children I hope the exclusion is upheld. Why does a child have the right to exert violence because she's deaf in one ear or a traveller. Should Travelling children not behave and be allowed to operate to a diffent set of rules within a school than all the other children. That's rather like saying the wealthy child should be able to get away with a bit more because mum and dad donate so much to the PYA. In the same way I think the three/four brats and their ring leader at my daughter's school should have been out within a term. They have a super opportunity, they cannot behave, they disregard and disrespect all those around them and have lost the right to remain in a fantastic little school with a brilliant reputation which they can only tarnish. They have no right to scare other children or disrupt their education. Two years is a long lead in to ruin the experiences of others.

Well I work in a school, in my experience once a child has got a bad name and does not quite fit they do their best to get them out. How come some schools exclude loads of pupils where other schools only exclude about four a year.

I think mctemp you are really good to support this family so many people ignore it. Well done you I wish I had spoken up in the past but I find school staff stick together.

Maypole do not get too smug it could be your child one day.

So could it be they did give her many chance but THEY didn't understand personally I think your over stepping the Mark.

And as you seem to be so involved makes me wonder why you didn't read them the kittens they were sent

Any who like the other poster have said seems she cannot meet the schools high standards they only reason for this girl staying in the school is to disrupt others

The only thing to try as you put it is the parents teaching heir child right form wrong

I would agree with Crystal and Yellowstone that such behaviour is unacceptable and all schools would be better off with out it.

However the simple fact is that the school has to abide by the guidance relating to exclusions and as McTemp has pointed out there is a litancy of issues that the school have failed on. If any school carries out through on the guidance correctly or even makes a few mistakes no pupils who had been permanently excluded would be returned to the school.

Butterbur that's very reassuring. DD3 has been deaf in one ear from birth. Stupidly, I managed not to pick up on the problem until she was twelve (the Health Visitor having waved her through the test she had as a baby). She adapted without any outside intervention, has never asked for special consideration at any stage and has achieved very highly. The school were made aware of her situation when she was properly diagnosed but felt no support was needed because she'd adapted so well as a child.

She never disrupted a class or abused teachers or punched another child in the face, either before or after diagnosis. She refuses to be labelled 'disabled'.

OP aren't you crossing boundaries getting involved, albeit behind the scenes?

This "she's/he's no angel" line seems to be trotted out regularly as a smokescreen for unacceptable behaviour and total disregard for others.

Perhaps her parents might be better off concluding this high-achieving school is not the right place for a very disruptive girl that struggles with the standards expected. She's clearly not in the right place for her abilities and she's pushed the limits of acceptable behaviour to the point where the school don't want her - not to mention disrupted her classmates' education - so what on earth is the point of pursuing this?

Lies lies and more lies first the school were picking on here because she is deaf in one ear then its because shes a traveller now she was a angle at primary I d don't believe a word of it or you post would of simply read this child was really good at her old school now shes done a 180 and I am not sure why

But you pushed off with their picking on her because shes deaf in one ear the long and short is shes not behaving so I say get her put if its got so far the teachers won't have her and the governors are agreed then I bet my house she is as they say, and to say well its because their becoming a academy they have expelled four other students you are not privy to what they have done or how long the school have been working to them and their families unless they are all deaf and travellers to

As a parent I don't want disruptive children in my chikds lass and I don't care the reason

I hope she dosent win the apeal for the sake of other chidren like my son that have to put up with disruptive children on a daily basis

Very easily, because the family themselves may well not be advertising the fact that they are of the Traveller community. So it will rather depend on whether the family can show that they have told the school that they are Travellers or that their attendance record speaks for itself in showing they are travelling.
It is actually not unknown for there to be an upturn of permanent exclusions at this time of year for "persistent disruptive behaviour". The official version is that schools try to keep the pupils in school but there is a point where it just gets to much and something is the final straw. Of course there is the other version which is as you suggest attempting to remove pupils who they would rather not have in the school the next year. I have no doubt that both scenarios exist.

You need some advice and fast.
From you various posts I would say this exclusion is not justified. Firstly because the school seems to have taken some very large jumps to PE, very quickly. Secondly they have clearly not exhausted all means of helping this pupil and the fact that the LA was involved in putting more support in just confirms this. There is the issue of this being a Traveller, they should have been receiving a degree of help and support and actually there are precious few traveller girls who go to High School. I also have some concern about the way that the 5 day exclusion became a permanent exclusion. This can be done but there is a specified way and just sending a letter is not one of them!
Please contact ACE or the local parent partnership or pm me because this sounds like one of those very occaisonal cases where the school are actually doing this for all the wrong reasons. Though I have to say that the parents of this pupil are being remarkably placid about it, most Traveller parents would simply have withdrawn their daughter when she hit the other pupil because they are very protective of their daughters.

oak has said what I wanted to but couldn't word as eloquently. It's but there are stereotypes surrounding traveller families (even settled ones) and it is an offence to let these cloud judgement and influence any decisions.

McTemp, are you going to be presenting the appeal for the parents? There is a whole procedure that needs to be followed for the original permanent exclusion and it sounds like this hasn't been followed. There are all sorts of options that can be followed. I am assuming there is no statement or anything in place for the girl, is she on the SN register at the school?

However as Oakmaiden has said if the relationship with the school is so bad then she may be better off elsewhere when the dust has settled.

Sadly, I think the fact this is a traveller family has unfairly influenced the course of this whole thing - firstly because the parents themselves are not highly educated in the sense society normally considers education, and it is highly likely they themselves had issues with or anxieties about school as an institution.

Added to which, research shows that traveller children, even settled, are far more likely to be excluded from school than most other groups of children for identical incidences. Do you know which traveller group they belong to? Since many groups actually have a legal ethnic identity and discrimination against this child on the grounds of her ethnicity would be covered by the Race Relations Act (or similar).

I think the lack of communication between the school and parents, and the lack of effort on the part of the school to provide parents with information in a form which is accessible to them, is really key here. I am fairly sure this could be demonstrated to be a major contributory factor to the failure to tackle the child's behaviour. These people might be able to help this angle: www.gypsy-traveller.org/about-fft/advice-information-unit/

It also doesn't sound at all as though the school has followed any sort of sensible policy or procedure here.

That said - I wonder if a new start in a different school would be best - if the child has been excluded from the local school and would need to travel to access another school, would the LEA not have to provide transport?

I am completely deaf in one ear, and always have been. It's not a significant disability. My parents never paid any attention to it, nor was I ever excused any piece of bad behaviour because of it. I feel sorry for other deaf-in-one-ear adults I have met who have been brought up to think they are labouring under a handicap, and have under achieved because of it.

A school cant permantely exclude a pupil unless it is a very serious offence. Thats why they have fixed term exculsions. If a pupil has several fixed term exclusions amounting to 45 days or more they can then be permantely excluded.

But if the student has only had one fixed term exclusion (for what) and then is excluded for truanting and throwing stones that really doesn't seem enough. What is the defiance and abuse of staff? I have loads of stuff here I didn't realise I had regarding exclusions and from what I have read it doesn't look like the school have done enough going on what you have said. The headteacher should have rung the parents as well as sending a letter regarding both exclusions. Do you know what other strategies were used for behaviour (if any). Had the student been on report (report card filled in each day by teachers about behaviour etc.), internal exclusions, assessment by Ed psych or use of nurture groups, counselling etc.

I am feeling rather annoyed about this - is there prejudice against travelling families - even static ones?

Out of curiosity I have looked up exclusions in 'A Guide to the Law for School Governors' . If the parents are appealing the appeal must be heard 'no later than the 15th school day after the day on which his or her appeal was lodged'.

The manual also says 'Exclusion should only be used in response to serious breaches of a school's discipline policy and only after a range of alternative strategies to resolve the pupil's disciplinary problems have been tried and proven ro have failed; and where allowing the pupil to remain in school would be seriously detrimental to the education and welfare of other pupils and staff, or of the pupil himself or herself.'

Be interested to know what was in the school's disciplinary policy! You can ask to see that or it may be on the school's website.

Well if the schools I work in (not governor at) excluded all the kids who truant lessons there would be very few left! I really don't understand why they thought it appropriate to permanently exclude at all. Not sure that would go down well at an appeal - they haven't investigated all avenues open to them have they. A five day exclusion would be for something very serious (not truanting a lesson) but, and I could be wrong, I think you can be given a five day exclusion whilst evidence is gathered for a permanent hearing but the school would need to inform about that. However I could be wrong there.

I think the only sieve-like thing here is the school's case, TBH. They have left themselves wide open for challenges.

Good luck.