To think innocent until proven guilty even at school?

[PurplePenguins]

There's 2 parts to my post really. Both annoy me but AIBU?

1. My DS3 is 15yo and very quiet and shy. A boy at his school was attacked in the playground (not badly so as to call the police). He accused my DS3 of the assault. I didn't believe him. It's not DS3 nature and the size difference would make it impossible (DS3 being a lot lighter and shorter). Anyway, DS3 was to spend the day in isolation while the school investigated. It took 3 days to watch the CCTV!!!! They discovered that it wasn't DS3 who attacked the boy in fact DS3 was the other side of the school grounds at the time so DS3 has spent 3 days in isolation for no reason. He has not even had an apology from anyone.
2. During his time in isolation, he has missed all breaks including lunch. DS3 wears braces (so no sugary foods or drinks) and is dairy intolerant. He has not been allowed a proper school dinner, but has been offered either a jam or cheese sandwich for which I have been charged £2.60 even though DS3 refused both. The school has a no packed lunch policy, saying they can cater for all dietary requirements. I wasn't told about the lunch arrangements when I was told about isolation. When I complained, the response was, in a nut shell all.students are treated equally and if DS3 doesn't want to eat that is up to him. AIBU to feel annoyed and feel as though they may have been treating him as though he was the one in the wrong?

(Sorry if I'm rambling)

I eat most things. Apart from cockles and whelks. But even I don't like jam sandwiches.

As a minimum I would want:

A full and frank apology to your DS in front of the whole school.
A full and frank written apology for the distress caused, with school admitting their error in writing.
Private catch up lessons with all teachers whose classes he missed whilst being in isolation. Sure, he may have had work set, but he missed out on all related discussion.
A refund for the pathetic school meal offering - all kinds of wrong re his intolerances!
The school to commit to raising awareness of food allergies as a direct result of forcing your child to choose between something he was allergic to and going hungry.

You won’t get any of this. I’d remove him from the school.

The school could only start the investigation when the accuser wanders in to claim the OPs child attacked him - by which time he's had plenty of time to get his story straight and witnesses lined up.

ohgoodness, that is a complete assumption on your part. Even if it were true, surely the first action the school should take is look at the CCTV. Equally, your statement that the delay in watching the CCTV is an assumption on the OP's behalf is based on precisely no evidence whatsoever: what is your basis for that statement? The strong likelihood is that she says that because that is what the school told her.

Police are investigators and it takes them weeks to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute assaults.

Again, you're wandering into speculation to try to bolster your argument - I don't think you know much about police procedure. If the police view CCTV and can see from that that the person accused by the victim of assault was nowhere near, it really does not take the weeks to decide not to prosecute that person.

Then you have CCTV which might not show anything.

But this school has CCTV which shows that OP's son was innocent and which they didn't bother to view for three days.

Perhaps they're busy learning to analyse all the information and not leap to rash conclusions based on one side of part of a story.

They might be better off learning that the way you analyse information is by starting off with the most obvious source of neutral evidence that has the potential to resolve the case without the need for any further investigations - in this case, the CCTV.

You've assumed much and known little.

Oh, the irony. Your entire defence is based on the premise that the CCTV was inconclusive, based on precisely zero evidence. Why on earth do you think OP mentioned the delay in viewing the CCTV evidence if in fact it proved precisely nothing?

Suppose, just for the sake of argument , that it is indeed the case that they took 3 days to look at it and it clearly indicated OP's son's innocence: Do you view that as acceptable? Or are you so desperate to exonerate the school that your refuse to contemplate the possibility?

And he was given food he could eat

Do explain how a child with a dairy intolerance can eat sandwiches with butter and cheese, Ohgoodness.

A school does not need to investigate at the same level of intensity as the police. It’s not going to court! Establishing that the op’s son was in a different location is straightforward questioning of reliable children who were with him at the time. They don’t even need to be told about the “crime”. They just need to corroborate that the child was where he said he was. Then SLT then go and talk to the accuser and ask him what really happened. OP’s DS is quickly out of the equation. This is how normal schools work!

Why was he only offered sandwiches anyway?

Because part of OP's ds 'not being punished' (as ohgoodnesssakes has been at pains to explain) is that in addition to losing contact time with his teachers and losing his break times is that pupils it isolation don't have access to the dining hall and other food isn't permitted to leave the dining hall.

" pupils it isolation don't have access to the dining hall and other food isn't permitted to leave the dining hall."

Utterly disgraceful that a hot meal/choice of food is withheld from a child imo.

Utterly disgraceful that a hot meal/choice of food is withheld from a child imo

Especially a child who has not been found to have done anything wrong.

"And we have to question?
WHY?
Why oh why? Did the attacked child, claim it was Op's ds?"

When one child claimed they were attacked by another in my classroom ( and didn't tell me about it - parent rang me) what had actually happened was that child had been punched by one of their own friends on the way home from school. They had got home upset but didn't want to say it was a friend that did it.

A little amused at how this thread has turned into such a long -winded debate in the absence of OP, whos probably got her feet up enjoying a cup of tea and a jam sandwich- (don't worry OP, I'm on your side just amused at the discussion in your absence, hope your meeting tomorrow goes well)

If you are unhappy with how the school followed its procedures you can complain - to the head initially. Follow the complaints procedure. But if they followed their procedures then you have no grounds for complaint.

In a totalitarian society, maybe you would have a point. But not in a democracy. We have the right, and a duty even, to question and object to wrongful procedures. And in schools we have a responsibility to replicate, to the extent possible, the due process protections that we ascribe to in society at large.

Good grief, I would hit the bloody roof and be complaining to head and governors.

The op is likely in the meeting she said the head wanted with her at 4.45 today ...

It says meeting tomorrow - make sure you've got everything wrote down so you don't forget anything

Your son has been treated really badly op. Good luck at the meeting tomorrow.

I do wonder in threads like these why some teachers are just so desperate to excuse anything and everything done by a school/teacher? It seems like some posters take any criticism personally.

Now I'm a civil servant and I've met plenty of shit civil servants in my time,and I do my best to get rid of them. So when an op complaints about a crap advisor at DWP, I don't think I must defend them, I think, yes that sounds shit- they should be fired!

My bad. I’ve been thinking today is Tuesday all day.

I'm agog that some posters are intent on manufacturing all sorts of scenarios simply to try to suggest that the school hasn't acted unreasonably in this case. Between grainy CCTV, perpetrators with hoodies concealing their faces, conspiracies to get 20 - 30 mates to lie. There is an astonishing level of cognitive dissonance.

Quite simply, it shouldn't have taken 3 days to view the CCTV, and if it was apparent that it was going to take so long, then OP's DS shouldn't have been kept in isolation for the entire time.

OP I would be inclined to e-mail the head in advance and ask if a timeline of the investigation could be made available for the meeting.

The food aspect is ridiculous. Those choices don't meet his dietary requirements. Ask why DS was not allowed to be escorted to the dining hall to choose suitable food and escorted back to the duty room. If they say H&S ask to see the risk assessment, along with the risk assessment for pupils with food intolerances. Of course you're not going to pay for it.

I would second the excellent advice of getting copies of both the behaviour policy & the complaints policy in advance. Read them through beforehand, and bring them with you for the meeting.

Good luck OP. Take no notice of the nay-sayers on here, a lot of them are teachers and very defensive!

Amazing no ridiculous/ no nonsense advice from BerylStreep. Good luck today OP

How did it go OP?

I would be livid.

The assaulted child's parents would have wanted to know the culprit asap- 3 days is ridiculous.

If my child was accused or assaulted, I'd expect to find out within 24 hours (unless it happened on a Friday)

My son is lactose intolerant and I wouldn't be impressed if they offered him a cheese sandwich(!) Surely the school could have done better than jam as an alternative? Does your school have Healthy School status?

So had the meeting with the head teacher today. Although she didn't accept that the school was in the wrong, she did agree that 3 days in isolation was excessive and that I it is not school policy to keep students away from lessons for so long. Her excuse was A teacher thought B teacher was looking at the CCTV and vice versa. As far as the lunches go, she said that being in isolation is a punishment and therefore children lose the privilege of using the dining hall. They offer sandwiches to children the duty room so as not to inconvienence staff!!!!. I did point out that DS had lost his freedom and privileges for 3 days because another student lied and that was totally unacceptable. By all meams look at the CCTV and punish him for what he has done but , in this case he had done nothing that required punishing him. The head did agree albeit a bit half heartedly. I pointed out that I had been charged £6.90 (£2.30 × 3) for a "lunch" that DS3 was unavle to eat (she tried to wriggle out of that one saying he CHOSE not to eat it!) and had I known he was not given access to a proper lunch, I would have wasted £3.30 (£1.10 ×3) and bought cheese sandwiches that he couldnt eat next door in Tesco. The head did become defensive about their no packed lunch policy but has agreed to refund me the 3 days money. DS3 got an apology from the head teacher and his head of year (which surprised me). I did point out that was a good start but I think his accuser should also apologise. I explained that, as most of the school knew about the incident and DS3s "punishment", I think the school should be made aware of the CCTV findings and the record set straight. I also said that DS3 should know what punishment his accuser was going to receive as his was not kept secret. Although the head didn't agree, she didn't disagree but I'm not holding my breath. His planner now has a list of all his allergies and conditions in so that he can show any member of staff should he need to (including a "toilet pass" as he has A muscle condition which means he has poor bladder control. Apparently allergies etc will now be in every students planner from Monday. A 30 minute meeting lasted 70 minutes and she was in no doubt how I felt. So I'll just wait and see what happens.

I think the head thought I was a soft touch. I have had many meetings with her about DS2 (the prankster). He had always been treated fairly, and his punishment had always fitted his crime so I've never had cause to complain. Boy was she wrong 😁

I am too Berylstreep. The CCTV is not grainy, I have seen the CCTV many times showing DS2 and friends. Hoods are not permitted and DS3 certainly wasn't wearing one. He doesn't have one. There are always nay sayers Frasier and I took no notice. I teach in a primary school. We have a reflection room foe children I'm isolation. I escort them to the dining hall and then to the reflection room to eat, so I know that is perfectly feasible.

Personally I don’t think it’s unreasonable to give a child a choice of 3 sandwiches as part of a punishment. You have a vegan option, 2 veggie options, and 2 dairy free options (assuming he was given dairy free spread or no spread) and all 3 are suitable any religion apart from Jain who might be ok with the jam depending on flavour.

That's the point Notevilstepmother, there wasn't a sandwich he could eat. He couldn't have cheese (dairy intolerant), tuna mayo (egg allergy) or jam (sandwich had butter or margarine, neither DS3 nor teacher knew which). He had not option but to go hungry. Not that he should have been in isolatiom anyway.

I think it is good he received an apology, the change in policy sounds positive as well?

Also, it is worth pausing a moment I think and considering that in previous dealings they have been fair. This plus the magnanimous attitude would leave me feeling that this does sound like a genuine mistake, rather than totally flawed procedures (minus the lack of knowledge about allergies.