Appealing against Permanent Exclusion

McTemp - one two day exclusion isn't enough in my experience. The exclusion hearings that I have been part of usually show persistent problems often going back to junior school and before. I am surprised the school can exclude on what you have said actually, unless the student had done something such as bringing a weapon or drugs into school or really hurt someone. Am surprised they have got away with it. The LEA should have details about exclusions at different schools - we have had two this year, one I sat on and it was to get help for the student involved as the LEA weren't doing what they should have and the student was not getting the help they needed - a severely disturbed young thing. It was very sad to hear about. I don't think it is a silly thing to ask for the data. Schools in my area have been criticised for too many permanent exclusions and the rate has gone down enormously. There are all sorts of other strategies to try first.

I have never sat on an appeals committee but I hope the family are going to have some sort of representation as it sounds like they won't be able to cope.

No, no, the traveller education service is rubbish! Not your idea!

Meant to add - sometimes a permanent exclusion can be the only way that the student can get the help they need as all else hasn't worked.

I am a governor at a school and was also one at another school in the past. I have sat on quite a few permanent exclusion panels and the governors involved have always taken the responsibility to exclude very seriously - it is a child's future. In my experience of persistent disruptive behaviour the behaviour has usually got to a point where there is no other option and all other strategies haven't worked. At the schools I have been a governor (one excellent, one not so) the staff have usually worked very hard to keep the child in school, they have to do this.

A permanent exclusion isn't something that is ever done lightly. I am assuming that the young girl has had exclusions in the past and each and every one will mean the parents have been informed in writing, work will be sent home to be completed by the student and a meeting will be held at the end of the exclusion to discuss the way forward - parents are invited and expected to attend. They will also have been invited to attend the permanent hearing and are invited to have someone to represent them if so desired. Again, in my experience the schools attempt to work very closely with the parents. There is a procedure to be followed which is usually outlined by the LEA (probably nationwide) and the school's own policy etc. I find permanent hearings very sad but there is usually a very good reason why it is happening. I have two big manuals about all this sitting looking at me.

That's rubbish, sorry.

Do PM admissions for advice, she is dynamite.

Is there a traveller education service in your LEA?

Also, as she was on SAP, ask to see a copy of her IEP.

That's quite a leap from a two day to a permanent exclusion. No PSP was ever put in place? I agree that the intervention panel's decisions were not given time to take effect, but as admission says, it is very hard without knowing the specifics. admission is far more knowledgeable than me on this matter, so I would take up her offer to PM her with the specifics.

If the school want rid of her, then you have to think about whether it is in the girl's best interests to return to a school where (unfortunately, experience tells me) she may be 'hounded out'. She won't be able to look at a teacher the wrong way without being excluded. I would be asking why a managed move was not explored as an option.

The LEA may have an advisory teacher for Traveller education- I would advise finding out if they have one, and whether they can become involved in this case at this stage.

School clearly don't want her and if parents feel she has not been catered for, the obvious solution is to have a fresh start elsewhere.

I think that the parents have to make decisions based around what the independant appeal panel can and cannot do and what they will base decisions on.

Persistance disruptive behaviour is quite common as the reason for permanent exclusion and the first thing the panel is going to do is consider the nature and number of these incidents. What should flow from these incidents is a serious of fixed term exclusions and at some stage letters confirming that the pupils is in danger of permanent exclusion if they continue. It is not necessary for there to be a final serious offence just an offence that literally broke the camel's back and the school said enough is enough.

The school has to come to the appeal and justify the decision reached with appropriate written evidence. Without the evidence base the school will struggle to convince the panel that the permanent exclusion was justified. I would expect the school to be able to back up their decision with appropriate evidence.

The other part of the decision that the panel will come to is whether the school has taken all appropriate measures to try and overcome the pupil's special needs. If the pupil is at school action plus this should be well documented. The training of staff would go a fair way towards this but the the school have shot themselves in the foot by saying that possibly not all teachers were aware of it and by not taking the obvious measure of not having this pupil at the front of the class.

This is not a get out of jail free card as far as the permanent exclusion is concerned and the parents and school will both need to argue the respective cases of why the deafness did or did not contribute to the bad behaviour.

The panel will consist of a lay Chair, a headteacher and a school governor and they will not lightly make a decision to reinstate the pupil unless they absolutely believe that the school, have not taken appropriate measures to keep this pupil in school or that the level of misbehaviour did not justify permanent exclusion. A few years ago the Panel would have had to reinstate for procedural problems but this has not been the case for a few years and much of the retteric from Mr Gove on school discipline / IAPs is based on out of date and wrong information. The vast majority of cases that go to IAP are not overturned.

If you want to PM I am happy to talk further about specifics if you want.

It is far more likely that a hearing difficulty would contribute to 'disruptive behaviour' by creating a disengagement with education, rather than in a literal sense of not following instruction.

Many children with SEN become very frustrated very early on in their education, and effectively 'switch off' from learning, often masking difficulties with challenging or disruptive behaviour so as not to be embarrassed by the gap between their own and their peers' achievement.

However, all of this is academic if the school has not followed the correct procedures- which is why I want to know the amount of time spent on fixed-term exclusion and if the child in question has ever had a PSP.

The OP states that there were 'several examples' of disruptive behaviour before the permanent exclusion. Why didn't the girl's parents step in then before the situation escalated to the point where there was a permanent exclusion?

I'm not sure the hearing loss is such a red herring. I've known some deaf children struggle socially and behaviour-wise; it does seem to affect social development in a way that sight or mobility loss does not. If the OP had said "loss of mobility" then I'd have been right in there with "how can that possibly affect behaviour?" But because it is hearing, I can just about believe it. Just my experience. From other children, no hearing loss in my family.

Also, you could easily get into trouble with some teachers for not realising an instruction had been given: if you don't know that the teacher just told you something, it is hard to ask her to repeat it. And some teachers would see not moving when told as disruptive. There are even teachers who take an explanation as cheek: dd usually gets on very well with hers, but she has come across the odd one who has a tendency to disbelieve the teen explaining that they can't do x due to disability: they are so used to the idea that teens are obstructive that they automatically disbelieve them. And then carrying on trying to explain registers as talking back. And if you have difficulties modulating your voice, due to hearing loss, you could easily "sound" like your archetypal rude teen.

Contacting the school doesn't necessarily solve the problem: dd's junior school never passed on any information about her condition to the people who would actually be teaching her.

If not all teachers were aware of her hearing loss and being sat at the back caused behaviour issues, how was she in the lessons where teachers were aware and she was sat at the front?

By year 8, you would think the child would be able to tell teachers herslef that she had a hearing problem. Or at least be able to tell her parents who had been at the back of a class one day so that they could contact the school and resolve the problem. That should take a couple of days at the most. Have the parents been in contact with the school to resolve any problems?

If she couldn't hear instructions, she could ask, or stay quiet, I don't know how you make the leap from not being able to hear instructions to being disruptive.

I don't think any appeal should be upheld, but if the parents are determind to do it, I would agree that ACE are a good place to start.

Hearing loss and dyslexia aren't the reasons for bad behaviour but if the child is not recieving support and had self esteem issues or similar they could be the reason.

They all stem from the same thing.

I agree with needing the whole file of information which should be available under the FOI act.

ADHD, autism and dyspraxia are very different, IMO from hearing loss and dyslexia and might well lead to behavioural problems. I teach many students with dyslexia and behaviour-wise they don't stand out. The couple I have taught with hearing problems have been absolutely fine. Once I did a new seating plan which sat a girl with hearing loss at the back - she just reminded me and I moved her.

Blaming poor behaviour on hearing loss seems a bit of a stretch to me,

You cant put all the blame on parents when there child is excluded from school my child has ADHD, Autism and Dyspraxia and anxiety disorder. When he was going to high school we told LA he would not manage a mainstream high school as it would be too busy a place for him and the staff would not have the expertise to deal with his problems.The LA refused to let him go to a special so he went to mainstream were the staff had not a clue about how to meet his needs. He was permantely excluded. He is now in a special school and doing really well.

That's why the parent needs to be very honest about what has happened and look to the causes. Otherwise the problem rolls along to another school and becomes an issue there. Why not try and work out what's going so wrong in this child's education and try and fix it? Better for everyone.

Well somethings not righted I don't buy for a moment its to do with being deaf in one ear.

Personally I send my child to learn and as a parent I don't want any disruptive children in my child's class, if a child can't behave and a parent can't or won't sort their child out then what choice do the school have

Sorry but to many good teachers feel they can't carry on because some peoples children ate wild.

You cannot sacrifice 30 children's education for 1 wild child if they tried everything then the child has to the shock might make her behave in the next school