Page 2 | School behaviour policy and scope of authority

Smeeth · 2023-02-09T14:54:49+00:00

My 15 yr son has just been excluded by his school. He had 5 friends at home on friday night supervised by myself with a few beers, later in evening he was filmed by one of the boys making some slightly slurred insensitive race related comments, all the boys were white. One of the boys shared the video without my sons permission to a snapchat group of 20, one of the non-white boys on group shared with his parents who raised a concern over the offensive language to the school. The school behaviour policy only extends off site to education trips and buses and the home is 14 miles from school and boys not wearing school uniform etc. The school have just sanctioned my son not the boy who posted the video without permission. The school conducted a limited investigation and did not establish context or even speak to myself (despite attempts by me to speak to school staff dealing with incident). They have also refused to share redacted copy of the video (all other copies destroyed) son and I have not seen it and redacted copies of the specific complaints My son is contrite but I have wider concerns on the schools processes, scope of authority and decision making. It has got to the stage I would rather it was a police complaint as he would be dealt with fairly, proportionally and reasonably. Sorry for long message but lots of issues to unpick, I have raised my concerns at process already with school, I am giving then another 24 hrs to respond before I submit GDPR request and raise complaint to governors. Any advice precedent. Son and boys have learned lessons but there are some dangerous and worrying wider issues of principle here. Any legal precedents/advice - I have government policies etc Thank you.

Original poster

Smeeth · 10/02/2023 15:03

Thank you for your input. Significantly more balanced than most. After submitting a GDPR request school have now acknowledged that they should release redacted video and nature of complaint. Their refusal earlier in the week was illegal, even more so that it regarded to ensuring a fair and objective discussion with my son and school on the scope of the bad behaviour. If anything the school are now more aware of their legal position regarding videos, data and CCTV which they have previously always denied access to parents.
Once I have the facts and evidence I can have a more meaningful discussion with my son rather than relying on third hand/hearsay evidence. It is also important that the school realise that if they are to work with parents in the interest of the child there must be trust; denying a legal right of access to the data does not build trust. And it was not just one individual at the school, it was position an institutional position adopted by 4 senior teachers (one of whom was safeguarding lead) and sanctioned by the headmaster.
Message for all parents - if schools deny you access to redacted CCTV of your child it is illegal.
Finally, to clarify my son was not drunk.

OP posts:

ethelredonagoodday · 10/02/2023 14:06

UpYaJumper · 10/02/2023 12:18

Your son is not a ‘defendant’, OP. He is not being prosecuted for breaking the law, he is being sanctioned by the school for racism. You are lucky the other child’s parents didn’t report him to the police.

You may have reason to feel aggrieved that the school didn’t communicate clearly with you, and that they haven’t shared the video. But you’re not disputing the fact your son got drunk and racially abused someone, so it seems a pointless exercise to start hounding the school about their processes. What are you hoping to achieve?

Keeping Children Safe in Education makes it clear that schools DO have a duty to safeguard children from online abuse. It doesn’t matter what their policies say (although they should update them to reflect the statutory guidance).

If I were you I’d be focussing on a) ensuring your son understands the serious nature of his actions and doesn’t do it again b) exploring with him why he felt it was OK to racially abuse someone and c) ensuring the school have a plan to support him, as being labelled a racist at school could lead to ongoing issues of bullying or ostracisation.

In other words, focus on what matters ratter than getting caught up in a dispute that will make you look unreasonable at best.

Totally agree with this.

UpYaJumper · 10/02/2023 12:18

Your son is not a ‘defendant’, OP. He is not being prosecuted for breaking the law, he is being sanctioned by the school for racism. You are lucky the other child’s parents didn’t report him to the police.

You may have reason to feel aggrieved that the school didn’t communicate clearly with you, and that they haven’t shared the video. But you’re not disputing the fact your son got drunk and racially abused someone, so it seems a pointless exercise to start hounding the school about their processes. What are you hoping to achieve?

Keeping Children Safe in Education makes it clear that schools DO have a duty to safeguard children from online abuse. It doesn’t matter what their policies say (although they should update them to reflect the statutory guidance).

If I were you I’d be focussing on a) ensuring your son understands the serious nature of his actions and doesn’t do it again b) exploring with him why he felt it was OK to racially abuse someone and c) ensuring the school have a plan to support him, as being labelled a racist at school could lead to ongoing issues of bullying or ostracisation.

In other words, focus on what matters ratter than getting caught up in a dispute that will make you look unreasonable at best.

Rollercoaster1920 · 10/02/2023 11:34

Have the school responded to the SAR?

I think the school has generally followed an appropriate process. They responded to a parent's complaint about another pupil.
I would take issue with them withholding the video from your son. But otherwise they seem reasonable to me.

Have you complained to the school about the distress the friend has caused your son by his social media post? I wouldn't personally, but you could under the same behaviour policy and associated process.

mmi · 10/02/2023 11:20

Follow the process.

I'm surprised the behaviour policy doesn't include online behaviour in this day and age.

prh47bridge · 10/02/2023 11:17

Unless you or your son wants to deny what happened, I'm not sure how sharing the redacted video helps. In any event, the school is not a court of law, so talk of "due process" is irrelevant. Given that you are not denying that your son did what he is accused of, I'm not sure what a further investigation would have achieved. Again, with both that and your point about context, you are trying to argue that the school must act as a court of law, which is wrong. As far as the law is concerned, the only requirement is that their actions are not Wednesbury unreasonable, which essentially means irrational. In this case, since they saw a video of your son making racist remarks, there is nothing to investigate unless he wants to deny it and, for example, claim the video has been manipulated or that it wasn't him.

Without seeing the school's behaviour policy I can't comment but, regardless of what it says, they are entitled to take action in any of the situations listed in my previous email.

The boy who posted the video without your son's permission has no case to answer as far as the school is concerned. I get that you are unhappy with this, but he hasn't done anything for which the school can reasonably sanction him. The offence was caused by your son's remarks. The way in which the non-white boy became aware of your son's remarks is irrelevant, except inasmuch as the fact it was a video makes it much harder for your son to deny making the remarks. Trying to shift part of the blame onto this other boy won't wash.

Sirzy · 10/02/2023 11:05

Your son has admitted what he has done so why do you need to see the video?

does your son ask for consent before sharing any videos of his friends every single time?

it doesn’t seem the school have done anything wrong. Hopefully it will be a swift kick up the backside to get him back on track.

MTIH · 10/02/2023 10:58

For process, school or trust complaints policy. Follow it through the stages.

Wolfiefan · 10/02/2023 10:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

Smeeth · 10/02/2023 10:48

Thank you for reading the question/post. My points were clear:

The school have refused to share the redacted video and complaint so I am having to act on hearsay. This is in breech of due process and ensuring a defendant is dealt with fairly.
That said, I have not condoned my sons actions and left him in no doubt that any race hatred language or actions are totally unacceptable.
It is not illegal for 15 year olds to drink at home, I had all parents permission. They were not drunk or pissed, they had a few beers and were checked by myself about ever half hour.
The school behaviour policy did outline scope of its authority outside of school - it was limited to on school buses and education trips.
The school did not adhere to the requirement to conduct a thorough investigation, not talking to myself (supervising the boys) or considering the role of the boy who posted video. This again brings into question of fairness.
Context is important legal requirement in any judgement, both as evidence and mitigation.
The boy who posted the video also has a case to answer, he posted it without sons permission and caused the offence to the victim- he remains unsanctioned. Again is this fair.
My son has been contrite, apologetic and has served his sanction.
However, there are lessons in how the school has acted. I have seen a laissaz faire attitude to school how school investigate serious incidents, gather evidence and pass judgement. It is interesting that if you google: how to conduct investigations in school, there are 100s of posts on how HR should deal with teachers, but none on how to investigate, assess and judge child related incidents. There appears to be no guidance other than 'thoroughly investigated' fair, proportionate and reasonable, and teachers and heads support british values or rule of law, individual liberty etc. Finally, it is the primacy that parents have for children not the school/state, I was not consulted once during investigation/sanction process either as witness or parent, despite making myself available.
I was trying to identify if others had similar incidents. Or if there was a policy/guidance in place on school investigations etc... not get my son off...
If lessons are not highlighted and concerns raised, cultures do not change. Next time it could be your child that is wrongly sanctioned/excluded as a result of flawed institutional due process. I have submitted GDPR request to see the redacted video (my right) and I will be raising my concerns on the procedural failings so lessons can be learned not to overturn my sons sanction.
Unfortunately, for some this makes me a racist, some of the comments on here are bordering on hate incident/crime with limited/no knowledge of facts. Again a warning for many that the minute you challenge or highlight concerns you are shouted down, and if you mention race the ability to have a balanced wider discussion on important issues disappears.

OP posts:

Wolfiefan · 10/02/2023 08:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

UpYaJumper · 10/02/2023 08:38

Hadtochangeforthisone · 10/02/2023 07:58

One of the MOST annoying things about MN is the inability people have to actually read the question in the OP and respond accordingly.

Thank God for the fabulous prh47bridge who is blessed with this ability in spades - but surely you don't need to be a lawyer to have a modicum of reading comprehension ?

So OP . In answer to your actual question. No - the sharing will not be investigated as it it's not practical as it is clearly not in the public interest to prosecute. (I work on a police investigation team). I would also think very carefully about involving the police. We work on evidence. Although there is some degree of discretion It would be very unwise to involve the police with regards to a crime that has clearly taken place and for which their is clear and compelling evidence that your son was the perpetrator of that crime. At present he is being 'prosecuted' by the school and received an exclusion. Much preferable than your sin having a criminal record for inciting racial hatred. THAT would have a far greater impact on his life than this exclusion.
Be careful what you wish for ! and think yourself lucky that the complainants parents went to the school and not the police.

As for the alcohol thing. Bloody hell MN is quite the parallel universe sometimes. I have 7 children both mine and DHs .. every single one of them was drinking beer at 15 ! (Which is not illegal by the way ) - we have beer in the house bought by us for us however the kids were all allowed some when mates came round.

Contrary to popular belief their brains didn't atrophy and 5/7 went to Uni with the other 2 in the services... and I would much prefer them to learn about alcohol in the safety of their own home than neck bottles of vodka 'up the rec' (which the children of the most sanctimonious of you are almost certainly doing !)

Well, that was quite a sanctimonious post for someone calling others sanctimonious.

Giving your 15 yr old a drink on a special occasion in your own home is one thing. Allowing a group of his friends to drink in your house is quite another. I would be furious if my 15 yr old was facilitated to get pissed by a friend’s parent!

That’s beside the point, though. The reason nobody has specifically addressed the OP’s legal questions is because they’re ridiculous and misguided. She needs to accept that her son made a racist comment and needs to take his punishment, then focus her energies on educating her child not fighting the school.

Hadtochangeforthisone · 10/02/2023 07:58

One of the MOST annoying things about MN is the inability people have to actually read the question in the OP and respond accordingly.

Thank God for the fabulous prh47bridge who is blessed with this ability in spades - but surely you don't need to be a lawyer to have a modicum of reading comprehension ?

So OP . In answer to your actual question. No - the sharing will not be investigated as it it's not practical as it is clearly not in the public interest to prosecute. (I work on a police investigation team). I would also think very carefully about involving the police. We work on evidence. Although there is some degree of discretion It would be very unwise to involve the police with regards to a crime that has clearly taken place and for which their is clear and compelling evidence that your son was the perpetrator of that crime. At present he is being 'prosecuted' by the school and received an exclusion. Much preferable than your sin having a criminal record for inciting racial hatred. THAT would have a far greater impact on his life than this exclusion.
Be careful what you wish for ! and think yourself lucky that the complainants parents went to the school and not the police.

As for the alcohol thing. Bloody hell MN is quite the parallel universe sometimes. I have 7 children both mine and DHs .. every single one of them was drinking beer at 15 ! (Which is not illegal by the way ) - we have beer in the house bought by us for us however the kids were all allowed some when mates came round.

Contrary to popular belief their brains didn't atrophy and 5/7 went to Uni with the other 2 in the services... and I would much prefer them to learn about alcohol in the safety of their own home than neck bottles of vodka 'up the rec' (which the children of the most sanctimonious of you are almost certainly doing !)

DrMarciaFieldstone · 10/02/2023 07:57

You’re one of those parents.

You’re not doing your son any favours.

UpYaJumper · 10/02/2023 07:52

If it’s a fixed term exclusion, you are doing your son no favours by going to war with the school on this. The school has acted correctly in sanctioning racist language towards another pupil. Hopefully your son has learned a valuable lesson (and you won’t be allowing under age drinking in your home again).

If it’s a permanent exclusion, you can challenge it and outline the context you feel is relevant. Otherwise, take it on the chin and set an example to your child.

NightsThatStartWithWhiskey · 10/02/2023 07:29

Seems fair to me. Concentrate on teaching your child to do better, instead of arguing with the school for taking action against racism. Schools are better without racist kids and parents like you.

PreparationPreparationPrep · 10/02/2023 07:20

From your OP the school have been very clear why he is being excluded. They are not going to sanction the boy who shared the video and it's probably been shared so many times. But I do get the impression you are excusing his behaviour. Maybe you could have sat down and explained to your son why you support the school decision in this instance, harsh as it may be.

I would have preferred educating him on why what he says was not acceptable and the roots of where he learnt that language and thinks it's ok to use in the safety of his white friends- but maybe that needs to come from you rather than the school.

abmac95 · 10/02/2023 06:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MargaretThursday · 10/02/2023 06:34

I'm pretty relaxed about alcohol compared to most on here, but I would be furious if my ds was given a few beers-enough to makeover least your d's drunk, at someone else's house.

Ireadthenewstodayohboy · 09/02/2023 23:55

I have no legal advice to add. But but...and I'm not in any way condoning whatever your DS actually said... but jeez no wonder children have such high levels of anxiety these days. One poorly judged comment when under the influence at 15 and someone's videoed it, passed it on, the school end up with a copy, and boom 💥

PanelChair · 09/02/2023 23:28

I agree with prh47bridge’s assessment. There’s nothing in the school’s actions which I would consider dangerous or worrying.

Neighneigh · 09/02/2023 23:23

If you're not going to be responsible for bringing your kids up properly, don't complain that school are trying to sort him out.

WoolyMammoth55 · 09/02/2023 23:21

Hi OP, I'm afraid I agree with PPs and think your instinct to fight the school on policy is wrong in this case.

Can you confirm the duration of the exclusion? As long as not permanent then I do think that your energy would be better used trying to accept the responsibility you hold for providing alcohol, and that your son holds for his offensive language.

If you both were to apologise for the offence that your ill-judged actions and words have caused, that would likely be a far better way forward. You are both at fault.

By looking for someone else to blame or minimising what has happened you are setting a poor example to your son.

NotMeNoNo · 09/02/2023 23:14

Presumably it's a fixed term exclusion - a few days? If so he needs to do the time, provide a genuine apology at the restart meeting and get on with the rest of his term. And watch his behaviour in future.

prh47bridge · 09/02/2023 23:14

I am not surprised they have sanctioned your son and not the boy who posted the video. The fact it was posted without consent is not their concern. The fact that a video of one of their pupils drunk and using racist language was available online is. Whilst the school should cover the sanctions for online behaviour in their behaviour policy, this is a "should" not a "must".

In terms of scope of authority, the law draws very wide limits. The government advice on online conduct and conduct away from the school is that pupils can be sanctioned for things they do:

when taking part in any school-organised or school-related activity;
when travelling to or from school;
when wearing school uniform;
when in some other way identifiable as a pupil at the school;
that could have repercussions for the orderly running of the school;
that poses a threat to another pupil; or
that could adversely affect the reputation of the school.

Your son's actions could potentially qualify under several of those headings.

I struggle to see how context helps. He was drunk. He used racist language. The fact it was a party supervised by you and you supplied the drinks doesn't alter or mitigate that. The fact the video was posted without consent doesn't alter or mitigate that.

I'm afraid I agree with others that you are being very unreasonable.