Aibu to want this boy excluded from school.

[dementedmumof6]

There is a boy in my highschool aged dd year at school, that is currently on police bail for threatening to rape a younger girl he knows. Who has sent inappropriate sexual texts to my daughter and who told one of her friends that as soon as he gets the chance he was going to rape her and that she would enjoy it.

For the last month he has been in seclusion, enters school after everyone else , is taught on his own and leaves early,

However the friend that he threatened to rape has been told that as of Monday he will be back in class as normal until it goes to court and that to keep her safe she is to make sure that she doesn't go anywhere in the school without someone with her at all times , when she asked them to clarify was told that she was to have one of her friends with her (so not even an adult ) even to go to the toilet,so that he can't approach her.

So the question is would I be unreasonable to go into school and insist that this isn't appropriate that if they are worried about the boys behaviour he should either have a teacher with him at all times or be excluded , and he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any of the girls in the school.

[GimmeDaBoobehz]

How utterly revolting.

YADNBU.

This boy sounds like a real danger. After being sexually assaulted at 13 by a boy who was 16 and who ended up going to the college part of the school the next year I was told to not go certain places. I wonder how on earth it should be those who are victims/possible victims that should be punished, not the perp.

I definitely think you should go into the school and demand that he be excluded. I honestly think it's poor choice from the teachers. If they really want him there, he should be accompanied by a male teacher at all times, even when he is on his break.

Disgusting. I'm on your behalf.

[Whistleblower0]

Gimme, but he has rights dont you know. He is a poor victim, and must have every resource at his disposal to help him

[tethersend]

Again Whistleblower, please cite the evidence for your belief that children such as this boy have every resource at their disposal.

Or just keep making snippy asides, your call.

[soapboxqueen]

Whistle everyone has rights and it is a mark of our society that we endeavour to preserve them for some of the least deserving.

He is still a child and not beyond redemption. You still have to live with him and people like him so we need to do our best to change things.

Washing our hands of children like him won't achieve that.

The school in this case need to come up with a new plan. The one they have is neither effective, fair or safe for anyone. Depending on the situation he may not be able to be pertinently excluded. Some Lea's have a total no exclusion policy as the problem is just moved on rather than dealt with.

The boy needs to dealt with. By the courts and by the school. Funding needs to be available for that to happen and for it to be effective. To often whoever is in government gives a good talk but fails to find or legislate.

I doubt the staff that are aware are thrilled by it. Many probably won't be so are in a similar situation to the students with regards to their safety.

If I were the op I'd be keeping my child at home until I had assurances.

[soapboxqueen]

*fund and legislate

[Whistleblower0]

Not snippy asides. Just the truth, as unpalatable as you find it.

Op, kick up the biggest fuss possible. Do whateer it takes to get this shit excluded. Make it as uncomfortable for the school as you can. Go to the papers,- whatever it takes.

Friends of mine campaigned to have a boy excluded from a high school. It worked eventually

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Once again if the OP goes to the papers she will get into trouble and the case against this boy will be weakened.

[tethersend]

"Not snippy asides. Just the truth, as unpalatable as you find it."

Again, please cite the evidence for this 'truth'.

[NearTheWindmill]

Having read the guidance Tethers I can see no reason why this boy hasn't been permanently excluded. Could it be that the head is a liberal leftie with the social agenda gene thrown in who is telling parents this boy can't be excluded because to do so would interfere with his or her personal social/political views?

If I were the OP I think I would be putting concerns in writing copied to govs. My principal concern would be my dd's safety and to seek an assurance that if anything happened to her on school premises at the hand of this boy (or elsewhere as long as he was a pupil) that I would hold them personally responsible for any consequences.

It is not good enough.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

"I can see no reason why this boy hasn't been permanently excluded."

That would be because you do not know all of the details, or of the situation the school finds itself in.

And you are projecting from your own experience.

[santandhishappybandofelves]

This is because his bail conditions are inadequate - if it's not on his bail school probably powerless - you need to nag and nag police.

[santandhishappybandofelves]

It's because he has only been accused and he is the one with rights - it sickens me I have been on receiving end of something similar - I kicked up a fuss at one of the minor hearings through police with prosecuting barrister and managed to get bail conditions changed - but no one wanted to - I just managed to be in right place at right time.

His bail conditions could include keeping him away from victims and L.A. could home tutor him

[soapboxqueen]

Windmill leas can have their own agendas and exert pressure from behind the scenes.

Successive governments have hailed the reduction in exclusions as a sign off improved behaviour. All it has done is put pressure on those leas and schools to not exclude. With little or no funding for alternative provision, everyone is just stuck.

[hippo123]

Haven't read all the replies, just keep re reading the op. so the boy hasn't actually been proven to have done anything? So how can a school possibly excude him? I would think they have said to the girls to Stay in pairs so they feel more secure / safe. I would be asking to see a copy of the risk assessment perhaps and advising my own dd what to do / not to do if approached, but a lot of these reactions seem very judgey IMO.

[NearTheWindmill]

Surely if the school finds itself in a situation where a girl is sexually assaulted on the premises or en-route to them, it will be up a creek without a paddle if it has done nothing to exclude the boy.

That's why I suggest the OP sets put concerns clearly in writing. No, I don't know all the facts but neither do you boney yet you appear to believe you are entitled to an opinion.

The system appears to be an ass.

[tethersend]

"Having read the guidance Tethers I can see no reason why this boy hasn't been permanently excluded. Could it be that the head is a liberal leftie with the social agenda gene thrown in who is telling parents this boy can't be excluded because to do so would interfere with his or her personal social/political views?"

I'd say it was possible, but unlikely. On the face of it, there would seem to be grounds for permanent exclusion. I'd think it more likely that there are things that we don't know about this boy's situation which have driven the head's decision not to permanently exclude him. I'm not saying that I think the head has made the right decision, but we do not know why s/he made it.

Whatever the decision, not enough has been done to ensure the safety of the other children, and this concerns me greatly; there are many options to consider between 'in mainstream school full-time' and 'permanently excluded', all of which seem to have been ignored.

[soapboxqueen]

here here on the ass bit.

Though the school are going to be rowing in poop if they exclude wrongly, fail to educate, the boy is assaulted, if he assaults pupils, if he assaults staff, anything they do prejudices the case.

It's difficult to navigate either which way.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

"No, I don't know all the facts but neither do you boney yet you appear to believe you are entitled to an opinion."

As entitled to an opinion as you are.

"Surely if the school finds itself in a situation where a girl is sexually assaulted on the premises or en-route to them, it will be up a creek without a paddle if it has done nothing to exclude the boy."

Both could happen even if they excluded the boy.

[BoffinMum]

I'd pull my daughter out the school if the school couldn't guarantee her safety.

[NearTheWindmill]

Both could happen but at least the school would have been seen to take action and loikelihood of it happening would have diminished. So let's just keep violence and criminals alongside ordinary kids and keep up with the excuses then.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

So the school excludes him and he gets back in to the school, the school has no idea that he is in the school until it is too late to do anything, if he is in school he can be tracked, placed and watched (from a distance), if he does anything wrong he can be placed in isolation.

If he is excluded he could wait anywhere on the route home for this girl in school his exit and entrance can be adjusted. No real help as he could leave home early, or wait on the route home if he leaves early. (the police could be informed if he walks out)

I have no excuses for what the boy has done or what he may do, but there will be reasons for what the school is doing whether you understand them or not.

[winklewoman]

A headteacher speaks again:

If a child is excluded from school, he is not allowed on the streets unaccompanied, he is officially under the direct supervision of his parents at all times. If he is seen on the streets unaccompanied, the police are required to take him to his parents, and if his parents fail to carry out the terms of the exclusion, they are liable to further intervention from the police or social services or both.

The safety of pupils overrides all other considerations, including SENs. If a child carries a starement of special educational needs only a permanent exclusion requires an immediate review, and therefore temporary exclusions maybe applied without regard to any SEN considerations.

[friday16]

If a child is excluded from school, he is not allowed on the streets unaccompanied, he is officially under the direct supervision of his parents at all times.

That only applies for the first five days of the exclusion.

access4education.org/resources/Truancy%20guidance.pdf

"10. In view of the concern that children who are excluded from school can become involved in anti-social behaviour the law has been changed to tighten the regime for excluded pupils. The changes require parents to ensure their child is not present in a public place in the first five days of exclusion (it allows the police to remove these children from public places) and requires local authorities and schools to arrange alternative education from the sixth day of the exclusion."

[winklewoman]

Yes, Friday, on the sixth day, the responsibility for the child reverts to the school nevertheless the child can remain on a fixed term exclusion of up to 45 days in any year. During this exclusion, if the child is on the streets the school is at fault and legal action can follow. Should the school proceed to a permanent exclusion, the education becomes the responsibility of the LEA until a placement at another educational institution has been arranged. At no point is the child allowed unsupervised access to public places.

[NearTheWindmill]

Why are some people so intent on keeping violent criminals in schools and making excuses for the reasons that should be so? Sense from teathers, winkelwoman and friday at least.

A thought: if this boy were an employee of an organisation, fopr what he has done he wouild be suspended pending a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct and dismissal. The terms of the suspension would ban him from the premises and an injunction would be sought if they were broken. Thje matter wopuld be dealt with separately and additionally by the police who wpouild have no influence over a corporate decision.

How, just how does the culture of excuses teach young people rigjt from wrong and suppoprt the miscreanmts in any way. They need to be prepared for real wprld and to do otherwoise is failing them. Wonders what planet many educationalists actually inhabit. It is quite scary that young peope face this soprt pof attitude on a daily basis.