Police arrest parents who slate school on class WhatsApp

[noblegiraffe]

A primary school sought advice from the police after '“a high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts” that had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors.' and the police response was to send 6 officers to their house to arrest the couple making the posts and put them in a cell all day.

Although the couple sound like an absolute pain in the arse who should pack it in, 6 police officers seems like a teensy bit of overkill, particularly with the amount of crime currently going uninvestigated. But with schools faced with spiralling numbers of vexatious parental complaints, something needs to happen. I think some unions are starting to offer legal advice and template solicitor letters for this situation.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d8c8566b-99b1-45c6-814b-008042d74a3a?shareToken=6deab807d148cf7695ed4d9d3664c51e

I am always here bashing teachers, am I? How interesting given that I name changed a couple of months ago, as I do reasonably regularly for security purposes, so I cannot possibly have been doing so.

Carry on with your fantasy accusations though if it makes you feel better.

I probably have seen threads you have created, but not linked them to your user name.

The LGO figures are also supportive of this not being a problem you can’t solve in isolation by only looking at parents. The LGO found fault in 92% of SEN complaints made to the LGO by parents/carers.

Your posting style is distinctive, nevermind the name change.

The only reason parents have to apply to the LA to have provision for the child set out in an EHCP is to force schools to comply with the law. The EHCP will only specify provision that the school should have been providing already per the law. The Local Authorities then also forcing parents to fight them through court to get the EHCP in place doesn’t change the fact that the school was legally required to provide that provision for the child in the first place.

How funny, given I’ve rarely ever posted anything previously on any thread about education.

I hope you’re enjoying your fantasy land.

The only reason parents have to apply to the LA to have provision for the child set out in an EHCP is to force schools to comply with the law.

That isn’t true. Sometimes it is because the child needs more provision than the school can provide even if the school is supportive. Sometimes EHCNA are requested for children that aren’t even in schools.

The EHCP will only specify provision that the school should have been providing already per the law.

That isn’t the case either. EHCPs can include provision beyond what a school can provide via its best endeavours duty and duty under the Equality Act.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Incorrect. Per the law the school must provide what the child needs to access education. The EHCP can provide more funding for the school to meet this need, but not having the EHCP in place doesn’t change the school’s legal responsibility to do so.

Ok, so if you didn't mean to respond in a blasé fashion wittering about how teachers need to earn respect to the part of my post that talked about headteachers being assaulted, was it in response to the bit of my post that said "NAHT said the results exposed “widespread reports of trolling on social media and in parent groups on Facebook and WhatsApp – as well as appalling instances of hate campaigns and harassment and intimidation”.

Are you defending parents trolling teachers on social media and appalling instances of hate campaigns, harassment and intimidation?

It’s not just the Equality Act 2010 in question. You need to have a look at the Education Act, the Children and Families Act, the statutory SEND Code of Practice and many more statutes. If you work in this area then it seems a significant training issue is rather apparent.

@TheCastleDoesNotReply it is not incorrect. I do this day in, day out. Mainstream state schools only have a duty to make their best endeavours to meet DC’s SEN as per section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2014. They also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments as per the Equality Act.

Some DC with EHCPs have things such as hydrotherapy, SALT, OT and animal-assisted therapy in their EHCPs. They are just some of the examples of SEP that go beyond reasonable adjustments and the best endeavours duty but are well within the scope of SEP in F of an EHCP which the LA then therefore has an absolute duty under s42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to provide.

As this thread and the case in question has demonstrated, many teachers seem to have a tendency to claim harassment, intimidation or trolling simply if somebody disagrees with them or says something disparaging about their school or profession. Self-reports from teachers about the prevalence of this therefore are not remotely reliable indicators of the actual prevalence of these things. I’d rather rely on the statistics from court findings for a more accurate picture since that’s the only objective data available.

@TheCastleDoesNotReply if you read my post and understand SEN law you would know that I didn’t just mention the Equality Act. I mentioned the best endeavours duty, which is from the Children and Families Act.

Ah right, so while you agree that headteachers are actually being assaulted, you don't believe that they are subject to campaigns of harassment or intimidation?

Their best endeavours, yes. Clearly, in the many, many cases th at come before the court and the one cited in the article this has not happened. They have in fact made this child’s life more difficult and even refused to discuss basic medical care with her family so that she would be properly safeguarded while they were in loco parentis. The Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments but the SEND Code of Practice requires provision to meet the child’s needs and for this to be discussed and agreed with families with regular reviews, open and transparent communication between home and school etc, for termly (minimum) reviews with parents and teachers that the school in question refused to let take place. The Children and Families Act contains further similar requirements, and there are various other laws and statutes placing responsibilities on school staff that appear to have been flouted by this school based on what is reported, which they have not refuted. They also appear to be at risk of prosecution under GDPR for misuse of personal data for organisational purposes without consent from the parent for this change of use, if any of these electronic communications were reported to them by staff/ Governors at the school, for which the fine is potentially unlimited.

@TheCastleDoesNotReply I am not sure why you have mentioned any of this in response to my post. I have already posted the emails alone aren’t necessarily harassment and it isn’t uncommon to need such frequent communication for those with complex needs. Neither did I say that in some cases schools don’t make their best endeavours. My point was it isn’t correct to say “ The only reason parents have to apply to the LA to have provision for the child set out in an EHCP is to force schools to comply with the law” or “The EHCP will only specify provision that the school should have been providing already per the law.” It was the use of ‘only’ I was pointing out is incorrect.

@TheCastleDoesNotReply BTW I think the pp is getting you mixed up with me. You see, that poster doesn’t like me pointing out a lack of resources, funding or staffing is not a lawful excuse for LAs to breach their absolute duty under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

If the Times article is accurate (and this is a big if), then the use of 6 police officers seems utterly ridiculous.

I’m just bored of your whataboutery.

You tried to start an inflammatory thread about parents based on this article, when the facts reported in the article indicate multiple legal and regulatory breaches by the school and no evidence of any such illegal behaviour by the parents.

When that didn’t go how you hoped you stated posting other articles and surveys of teachers’ opinions that have nothing to do with this case, then deliberately attempting to misrepresent comments about this issue as being some kind of endorsement of people hitting Head Teachers which has nothing to do with the situation being discussed because the school has not alleged that the parents in question were ever violent, aggressive or even verbally abusive to them. If you wish to start a separate thread about whether people should hit Head Teachers I’m sure everyone will agree that that is terrible, but it has no relevance to this case and this thread that you started and trying to conflate these two issues to attempt to imply that anybody who criticises or challenges schools on their behaviour is intimidating/ threating/ hitting staff is despicable.

Ah. Thank you.

Perhaps some training in education law should be included in the PGCE, or in their CPD. The lack of knowledge of the teachers posting here about their legal responsibilities is quite shocking and probably the source of many of these disputes: they seem (almost) genuinely to believe parents are “entitled and demanding” simply for expecting them to comply with the laws for their profession of which many seem to be oblivious.

Since it turned out that they committed no crime and it was so obvious that they hadn't that it didn't even have to go to court you might question the basis for your supposition there.

They did teach them a lesson in keeping their mouths shut so not a wasted day.

They won't answer back in a hurry.

That is a fair point well made, and the “only” is duly retracted!

Except that the police determined there was none and released them.

So they committed no crime, but you want them scared so they'll keep quiet in future?