Permanent exclusion

[MarilynAlice]

My son was permanently excluded from school 5 months ago I have been fighting it ever since as they were discriminating him and manipulating suspensions. I took it to an independent panel amd they quashed the decision of the governing body and directed they review the exclusion again because of how flawed it was. At the independent review they completely made up a new lie that my child strangled another child, they have literally re wrote incident forms and got the child to re write their statement nearly 5 months down the line saying the strangling took place, they have submitted these to the reconsideration panel, surely this is not allowed.

I'm not a glove puppet I am a long established poster who has been here since 2013. If you think I am fake the correct thing to do would be to report my post.

If you tell someone they aren't providing facts, don't be shocked when they give you links to research etc.

I'm somewhat shocked that someone in your role has referred to the National Autistic Sociey as "very biased" - where are your facts for this?

I'm sure @idreamoftoddlersleepytime can speak for themselves. That doesn't mean I don't also have the right to speak.

That's all very nice but stating that "it's routine for schools to falsify documents" and the such really is nonsense. And like I said, no facts were provided.
You don't know what my role is so unsure why you're shocked? You really don't think the National Autism Society will have a a bias when discussing SEND permanent exclusions? Really??

No I don't think that the National Autistic Society will have a bias when it comes to SEND exclusions. I do think that the assumption that the society will have a bias is in itself quite a biased opinion. However I have no interest in debating this further with you because I believe you have more than adequately proved the point that was being made and I'm not interested in derailing the OPs thread further.

ETA at least @idreamoftoddlersleepytime actually did provide links to research etc, where as you don't have facts or research for your opinion, just your own bias.

If you've been offered a PRU, use it until your child is able to return to a mainstream school.
1 perm ex will not prevent him from getting a place elsewhere, but 2 probably will at his age. Ask your education access team for advice.
PRUs are used to provide education until a child can return to mainstream - is yours, honestly, ready to do that? Think about if his ADHD is managed well enough for him to cope with a school day and a full curriculum. Think about what support you think he would need versus what is available. In a mainstream secondary school it's unlikely he'll get a TA without an EHCP. Does he actually need that level of support or would he cope with just access to pastoral support when needed? I'm not asking you to answer here but have a think about what he needs and whether any mainstream school can actually provide this.

You are entitled to your opinion of course ☺️

Please access the latest statutory guidance around permanent exclusions, freely available to all. You will see the amount of work and evidence schools have to provide and the thresholds they have to meet to issue a permanent exclusion.
No bias at all, it's a legal document.

You have very little to gain by fighting this. Use your energy wisely. Fight to get him a suitable school placement.

Nothing personal. But perhaps he needs to be walking into a school that caters a bit better for him. He is not getting support and he is impeding the other children's education.

The way you are coming over is that his disruptions should be excused because he has ADHD.

5 months out of education must be having a terrible impact on him, (and the stress for you!).

Whatever his previous school did (or didnt), your DC's relationship with teachers and pastoral would surely be difficult or impossible even if he were somehow to return. And you have no trust in the school anyway. So realistically, whatever the rights and wrongs he's not going to be educated successfully there.

So whats best for him now? He's only 13, nothing is written in stone for him.

@Sofiabella the revisions to the statutory guidance on exclusion were a political fudge. And it is a damn sight easier to suspend and exclude than it is to ensure your staff are trained and supported to deal with autistic and adhd children with a tendency to lash out as a feature of their disability. Do you think there is less paperwork and practical work involved in assessing complex need, securing EHCP funding, recruiting specialist TAs, upskilling existing staff, and integrating children with complex needs into the classroom? Suspension and exclusion is the go to remedy to manage children out of schools. If you look at the judgments coming out of the SEND tribunal, you would see that more often than not (a) it is used on children with SEND (b) it is done unlawfully, meaning in circumstances amounting to disability discrimination.

But sincerely, thank you for demonstrating what parents in OPs position are up against (ie institutional denial of the problem / smears (you called me a conspiracy theorist) to delegitimise their complaints).

I agree with this. When my son was excluded, we made this our priority. It was very difficult to let go of the hurt and the unlawful conduct, but in the end, you only have so much energy, and we decided it was better to get him settled quickly. My OH found this harder, but agrees now it was the right thing to have done. We are two years on and son is thriving at his new school where he has the right support in place.

You're speaking as a parent and I'm speaking as a professional with experience of permanent exclusions done correctly.
If you say that wasn't your experience then there we go.
But all the schools I've been a part of have done permanent exclusions as an absolute last resort and to falsify records or anything of the sort would have been ludicrous.

As a parent with direct experience I can back up what @idreamoftoddlersleepytime says here.

Two years ago a disability discrimination tribunal ruled that a school had behaved unlawfully with their use of suspensions and illegal exclusions against my child. I was able to evidence that the head, deputy head, SENCO and governors had written demonstrable lies in documents provided to the tribunal as part of their evidence bundle. The tribunal chair agreed with me on nearly every point. I didn't bother getting the exclusion overturned because I wasn't about to let that bunch of absolute turds get anywhere near my child again (they'd done more than enough damage with their laziness, ineptitude, incompetence and lies) , but I could have done and I would have won.

I have no idea if that's what is happening in this case, but I know it happens. It's just not fair to tell a parent with lived experience of something that it doesn't happen.

Discriminating against him?

Errrm no. He is disruptive, he fights other pupils, he uses foul language, he has little interest in getting his head down and learning.

Why would the school want to keep putting up with that?

The tribunal can't direct reinstatement so you wouldn't have been able to get him back in the school even if you did want the "turds" near him again.

I'm well aware of that thanks. I know the process I would have had to follow, and you are correct, it wouldn't have been directed by the tribunal but instead the decision to exclude would have been reviewed by an independent appeal panel.

I chose not to because I put all my energy into securing the right placement for my child going forward instead.

Yes, the headteacher had to accept that what she actually said was not recorded in the minutes and the governors had to explain why they accepted the minutes as accurate.
The headteacher was more concerned with launch in legal action for my recording when really she should have been more concerned with the inappropriate comments she made.

But surely all minutes of every meeting ever are like this?! There's never recording of every single thing said (how could there be, it's minutes, not a transcript!). Accepting the minutes as accurate means that everything said in the minutes actually was said, or is recorded without error, not that other things said weren't recorded. "Jenny thanked everyone for the well wishes for her cat's recovery", or "Bob agreed that it was warm today" are rarely in the minutes despite being said

I do understand how minutes work. I’m not stupid.
The headteacher was asked for her closing statement, what she actually said in the meeting was COMPLETELY different to what was typed in the minutes. And one very inappropriate comment coincidentally missed out. It wasn’t a case of some things not being recorded.
If it was, I doubt the headteacher would be threatening legal action against me - it’s because she’s been caught out.

So because you’ve worked in (and seen permanent exclusions done properly in) a handful of schools means all or most schools do the same? That’s ridiculous. Your experience doesn’t mean all schools are the same. It’s silly to think that quite frankly. That’s like saying the schools I’ve worked in are graded outstanding and so all schools must be.

Sometimes people take against kids.My eldest had at least 2 temp exclusions in reception (deserved) her friend also had at least one. Both now on long asd waitlist.
Really picked on by y3 teacher for very minor things. (Nose picking, splashing puddles etc). Then excluded from out of school activity. Again for pretty much nothing (not paying attention when other kids showing off, getting ill at an activity.
And when you consider you might expext reception teacher to identify asd in pupils.

However if does seem that op (sorry) is very rigid. Determoned to avood the pru and prove the school wrong. Wbich theg may well be and lying. However as pp say focus on getting a diff school for your son. You will be the one laughing if he does well there.

As i have to say dd obviously left the other activity and has benefitted so much from a different very understanding one.

I think schools and activities need to bear in mind that parents could have a strong feeling a dc has sen but is not disclosing that (yet).

My relative is very similar to op in trying to prove others wrong even when its to her own detriment.

Generally i find myself apologetic about dd. However even any type of trying to find out a situation or implying it wasnt her fault you can see the teachers getting angry.

Could you home school for a year and see if his behaviour improves?

I don’t understand the process you’re describing, and I process PEX at a school. If the IRP directed a reconsideration meeting it has to take place in a limited time frame - not 5 months down the line.
New evidence cannot be introduced. The governors can only reconsider the evidence presented at the original hearing and look at it again in the light of the IRP’s recommendations re the panel’s shortcomings.
The school is not involved in the reconsideration meeting and the student/family are not either, just the panel and the notes from the original hearing.
I really don’t know what process is happening but it isn’t going to get your son a place at the school again. As pp have said, you need to focus on getting him back in education elsewhere by working with the local authority.

Also, having worked on just 3 PEX in my first 3 years, we’ve done 6 in the past 18 months. All were for emeritus breaches and all have been upheld as have the two that went to an IRP.
Heads are sending a strong message to students/parents and they don’t want to lose staff at the sharp end who become disillusioned if they don’t see that message being sent.

You're not understanding what is happening. Many schools fail to follow the processes correctly, they jump to suspensions and exclusions without making reasonable adjustments, and they abuse part time timetables to hold kids in limbo (and as a proxy for expulsion). They also unknowingly engage in practices that are indirectly discriminatory to children with ADHD and autism, because it heightens their anxiety and precipitates meltdowns.

Schools have e been know to falsify documents when they want a family out. In the cases where documents are falsified. It happens when they panic when it comes for review (whether by the governors or the SEND Tribunal, or in response to Subject Access Requests, and they modify or create documents that purport to have supported the decisions already made (on the grounds of reasonableness). But this evidence is false and unlawful because it didn't exist when the decision was made, and it's the legality of the decision (and the process by which it was come too) that is under scrutiny. There is an unhelpful culture in education of schools and LAs not understanding this, and thinking it's legitimate to support their case in this way by filling out their evidence, and when they are found out, it unravels very badly in front of the SEND judge.