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

Why are you ignoring the couple's obsession with the appointment of the acting headteacher and pretending these were all legitimate conversations about SEN?

Do you know the issue regarding this appointment?

Do you know if it was someone they had had dealings with before and felt they were an inappropriate appointment?

Was the deputy someone who had been obstructive regarding their SEND child’s care?

I don’t. That’s why I haven’t commented.

I have only commented on what I DO know.

Overkill by the police.

Lots of contact with parents of children with SEND is necessary.

Let's face it, his real issue was that he had no say in the appointment of the new head because he was no longer a governor.

The police say they had 6 officers because had different roles, handling the arrested people, looking after the children and searching the house.

How many emails sent concerned the appointment of the new head?
What abuse did those emails contain?
How many other parents were concerned at the seeming lack of action on a new head being appointed 7 months after the old head left?
Did any other parents voice their concerns to the school? If so, how many times?
How often were the governors contacted?
What was the content of those emails and was it abusive?
Is there an internal procedure for dealing with abusive/difficult parents and was it followed?
What was the action that resulted in being banned from the school premises?
Why did the father go onto school premises after he was banned?
Did he know he was banned?
What was the school’s response to genuine parental concern?
How many of the emails sent dealt with genuine parental concern?
Was there a history of the school not following medical procedure re the daughter’s epilepsy?
Did the new teacher show that they were fully aware & trained in dealing with the daughter’s epilepsy?
What was the formal process for speaking to/contacting the Chair of Governors and was this followed?

Some starting questions it might be good to have answers to before assuming most of the things that seem to have been assumed on this thread!

Good 👍

You've assumed that the 'lots of contact' was about the child. You are therefore assuming that the school banned this couple from the premises for making lots of contact about their child.

Yet the article doesn't say that. Don't you think the parents would be saying that if that were the case? The only time any concern about their kid was mentioned was after they were banned from the site.

Before that it was 'we had concerns about the transparency of the head recruitment process'.

And the article says "Hertfordshire county council said Thomas had been appointed as interim head for one term before a proper recruitment process was carried out, adding: “The role was advertised publicly, and the recruitment was supported by external professional advisers. We are confident that this was a fair, transparent and timely process.”

This all sounds totally normal for headteacher recruitment.

You do realise that the school can't share a lot of that information don't you?

I agree that there are SO many assumptions being made here without knowing the full story.

As an ex primary teacher I will always be suspicious of a school putting full blame on parents as I have worked for too many headteachers who think they are untouchable and above the rules. (And even the law. One ex HT had their hand in the petty cash to buy coffees and petrol!)
I’ve witnessed first hand how all too often the recruitment process is fixed and how rules are bent so I would not be surprised at all if there was a lack of transparency in this case.

So many HTs have an attitude of ‘don’t dare question my school or my authority’ so I can well believe that this was part of the story here. I’d love to know more about what happened from the parent’s perspective.

The mistake they made though was voicing everything so publicly. They should’ve gone through formal channels (I say this but often official channels are shut down). Not that you’d expect a SWAT team turning up on your doorstep 🤪

From the poster above about the LBC interview

"They didn't dispute sending 80-odd emails to the school. They also made multiple phone calls. They accosted staff in the playground. They made personal approaches to the Chair of Governors, which the father as an ex-governor would have known to be wrong and unfair. Eventually when they were banned from school grounds the father still made his way into the school"

This isn't normal behaviour.

Sending emails is normal.
Speaking to teachers at pick up is normal.
Speaking to other parents is normal.

You can spin this either way.

I can’t believe that! I’m so sorry you went through it. I hope you took satisfaction in saying ‘f off’

Well no. Because normal emails and normal speaking to teachers doesn't get you banned from the school site.

But there is no evidence or any direct quotes to prove that they were abusive at all.
There is no mention of them being threatening.

It’s possible the emails became more frequent as the replies became less forthcoming. That questions about their child were left unanswered so they followed up in person, that they were fobbed off and they then vented to a fellow parent (who is also a governor)

We don’t know anything about the content of the contact. Except that the police didn’t deem it criminal.

No, but we do know that the school decided it was bad enough to ban them from the school site. That is not a step that is generally taken lightly.

It’s possible the emails became more frequent as the replies became less forthcoming. That questions about their child were left unanswered so they followed up in person, that they were fobbed off and they then vented to a fellow parent (who is also a governor)

Again, the dispute was not about their child's needs. It was about the father's issue with the governing body's recruitment. The child's epilepsy only came into it when his behaviour over the recruitment led to him being banned. She was collateral damage in his dispute with the acting head and the present governors.

In 32 years of teaching in various primary schools, I can only think of three instances in which family members were barred from the school grounds and in each case it was for being persistently verbally abusive towards school staff. The fact that the dad entered the school even after being barred indicates that he is, at best, a total arsehole.

I've been teaching at my current school for more than 20 years and I can't remember a single example of a parent being banned from the site. As others have said, it's not a step that is taken lightly.

At which point does the volume of emails, even if not threatening, become abusive? Because there is a point - a nice, ordinary person knows that sending email after email becomes aggressive even if the emails are not rude.

Taking a case to court is expensive. It’s possible that the CPS / police decided that there wouldn’t be enough to be sure of a conviction.

80 emails over 6 months isn’t even one every other day. I get multiple emails from my staff every day. If I don’t respond, they’ll send another to follow up.

How many unanswered emails is negligent?

We don’t know the content of these emails. We don’t know if the teachers replied to many or any of them.

We know many parents felt discontent with the management of the school.

No we don't?

But presumably you want to hear from your staff - and sending you emails is part of their job.

Once this couple had been banned from school premises (in itself a pretty serious thing), it seems fairly obvious that communication from this couple was unwelcome.

So we can’t say whether the emails or conversations were “abusive by frequency”.

If they send an email, it goes unanswered, they send another and it’s unanswered, they speak on the playground, they follow this up with an email to confirm what was discussed, you can see how the contact would quickly rack up. Not because the parents were harassing them, but because the staff were negligent in their contact and the parent didn’t accept it.

We just don’t know.

Being in regular contact with parents of children in your class with SEND is part of a teacher’s job.

I meant you claimed "We know many parents felt discontent with the management of the school."

No we don't?