Teachers taking photos outside of school

Yes I'm baffled how it could be twisted to such a degree and in such a direction.

The HTs responsibility being safeguarding and being worried that a child who was suspended was hanging around school as far as they would know unsupervised would be served by him having evidence of that in case it was part of a wider pattern of parental neglect. If indeed they even did take a photo which has only been assumed and we only even have the suspended child's word that any of this even happened.

The responsible adult who should be supervising, making decisions etc for the child during a suspension is obviously the parent. Safeguarding requires us to be concerned and record things that happen outside of school hours and off of school property by the way.

I don't think OPs ds has been set up to fail from day one - apparently this is his first exclusion ever and he is in year 11 so this is also potentially a cause for concern for the school that there has been a dramatic change in behaviour and extreme acting out after 6 weeks at home.

I can understand the OPs perspective and how this made her feel but I can also totally see legitimate reasons for the school to be concerned and that documenting evidence can be a part of fulfilling that concern and their safeguarding duty. The HT is not psychic - all they know is that a suspended child who is legally meant to be at home is outside school (initially right after school so they'd definitely catch the friend coming out of the gate, later at least 10 or 15minutes after the bell for end of period 5) at the end of the school day. This, unless psychic, lack of appropriate parental supervision and response to an exclusion added to a dramatic change in behaviour after a 6 week holiday would require reporting at my school and any school that was properly undertaking it's safeguarding duties. If you don't like our safeguarding duties then it is people way higher up the food chain than an individual HT you need to take it up with.

Nobody said that. Pumper entirely twisted @swallowedAfly 's post.

I'm worried by the number of people who don't seem to be able to grasp that there are some HT who really will do things to make a case about a student who another school would support.

I'd say 99% of school staff and schools are really good.

The 1% who aren't are scarily abusive. And that experience can set some children up yo fail from day 1.

And I'm inclined to believe OP as she very graciously accepted that her decision could be taken the wrong way and she didn't really think it through.

The issue isn't really her decision - but the HT decision not to speak to the parent adult to adult at the time to resolve it.

In this case she would have met a reasonable parent who would have apologised for her decision and seen it wasn't wise.

Much better than going in defensive and not engage with the parents you want to engage with you.

@Pumperthepumper agree - anyone who says a head teacher doesn't have responsibility for a child in their school is bonkers.

If the head teacher didn't have responsibility why take the photos?

The parent absolutely. Are you quite well?

I don’t know. I think the head teacher also has a responsibility to behave appropriately towards a child in their school who’s clearly struggling.

Absolutely sure.

Not the headteacher? Are you sure?

The"responsible adult" in this situation is the parent, ffs!

Well yes, because a responsible adult should have more self-control than a sixteen year old. Taking pictures of him is bizarre when she could have just spoken to him. Or phoned his parents to say he’d been to school.

And once again it will be the choices and actions of the responsible adult that the school is likely to be worried about not a child's who clearly has behaviour issues and is currently making poor life choices.

The HT doesn't know if Mum is around somewhere in a car and come on, surely if your child has managed to be excluded in September, in year 11 your priority isn't nit picking over well technically they did nothing wrong and you don't get to tell me what to do? The child would have bugger all chance if that was the parental attitude. Any sane parent is keeping them well away from school and definitely not dropping encouraging them to hang around outside at kicking out time. Lessons may have ended but the school is open, the staff are still there doing duties at that time, the kids are still in the process of leaving etc.

Whose playing silly war games here? It's just common sense especially if you're trying to teach your child how to deal appropriately with rules and authority etc so that they can make it through school with some GCSEs by managing not to get excluded again and miss more education.

And yes JohnnysGirl - that's about as credible as a year 11 child being excluded within 2 weeks of the start of the year for 'just walking out of a lesson'.

Yeah, the chances of the HT hanging around the park 15 minutes after school finished are sort of slim to none, really. You know that.

It was after school had ended, and it was off school grounds. He did not go into school. I very much doubt he was in school uniform and returning a pair of trainers is not a sanctionable offence in this time. A car is a private place, so as his mother drove him there, whenever he set off, he was in private until school had ended (well, 15 minutes after).

OP's son literally has done nothing wrong by being there.

And some responding without even reading the thread.

The head may feel it was a safeguarding concern. That a child, whose behaviour has been alarming enough to merit exclusion so early in the year and in year 11 is being allowed to wander around outside school at kicking out time by the responsible adult in their life may well ring alarm bells.

The child has been excluded in his exam year at school in September for goodness sake, he is on very thin ice in terms of his chances of getting through this year and coming out with any qualifications which would have serious ramifications for him yet he is being allowed to hang around outside school with his mates at the end of the school day. Can you not see how that might be a cause for concern and a school would have a responsibility to document it? It could form part of a wider picture for some young people of neglect and vulnerability to all sorts of predation because there is no parental supervision in their lives. Even in nice leafy schools we have kids getting involved with County Lines or child sexual exploitation etc - we have a duty of care and can't win really - if we didn't care about things that were going on outside school we'd be in serious trouble, if we do care about it we must be perverts or little dictators trying to tell parents how to parent. Think and always, always rtft.

It's not about school hours, it's about school property.

He should not be at school at the moment.

I'd have given him a lift to that person's house instead. Allowing him to turn up at school when he is suspended is setting him up to fail.

The secondary my ds went to has a park outside the school.

So does our catchment school.

Another has a park 300m away.

Ime it's quite common for both to be true. The parks are off school grounds so visible from school.

But it's irrelevant when the suspension had ended and a park is a public place.

The action was entirely legal and weighing the contract.

The optics could be misinterpreted and the OP accents that.

Op definitely said it was "outside school grounds whilst other children were still flocking out of school".
Nobody would assume from this that it was actually the local park.

The OP has said over and over it was 10-15 minutes after school ended and in a park near the school.

The OP also said But a Headteacher, taking a photograph of a student, outside of the school at a time when all the other students are flocking out of school..

So it's not entirely clear.

I can imagine a HT being at the school gates while the students are leaving. I can't really picture one being in a local park 15 minutes after the end of school.

So people are responding based on two different versions of events.

The OP has said over and over it was 10-15 minutes after school ended and in a park near the school. After the suspension ended.

If the Ht had concerns about that rather than using the phone the take photos to show OP at reintegration meeting as a kind of "gotcha" (if that is indeed what the point is but if it isn't why take them 🤷‍♀️) couldn't they have just used said oh one to ring OP and engage with her.

Everything the OP has said on here shows she would have engaged reasonably and accepted the optics of it weren't great and been able to engage with HT.

I've met many a teacher and Ht who are wonderful and really want to support pupils who are struggling. There are an odd few who don't and want to win points the battles and the war. If that's the case here the OP is right to be concerned because she's trying really hard to support her ds as a parent but can't fight the school as well.

Very strange post... 🤔

Anyone anti exclusion has clearly never been involved with sexual abuse between peers in school. Anti exclusion policies are anti safeguarding other pupils. Pro better funding and support for excluded students would be much better than banning exclusions.

The head can now have the conversation about what the student was doing on Friday during the reintegration meeting. The head has proof the child was there (if indeed the HT was taking a photograph). The child/parents actions may have been legal, not sure they were very well thought through.

Maybe the head has had previous parents swearing blind that their child didn't leave the house all day and was definitely not hanging around the school at kicking out time. 🤷‍♀️