School acting unlawfully?

[emmapemma91]

My little girl started a new school Monday, she’s 6 and starting year 2. She has SEN and is waiting for assessment for possible autism.
Today she was only at school for an hour and I got a phone call saying to pick her up as they ‘can’t deal with her needs and she’s disrupting the class’.
Now she’s been put on reduced timetable, only doing mornings. Obviously I’m concerned about her mental health and how she’s coping but isn’t sending her home ‘unofficial exclusion’?. And should I call them out on this? They’ve said they’re going to need her picked up again tomorrow if she doesn’t settle. And it seems a bit extreme to put her on a reduced timetable after only 2 full days.

I will start the EHCP process soon but know the school need to use their resources to try settle her first, but it seems like they aren’t prepared.

[BKCRMP]

My DD is nearly 6 with additional needs. She's only been sent home once after 2 hours of not being able to calm her down. She has frequent meltdowns etc in school. They keep her safe. They keep the other children safe. They wouldn't send her home unless a last resort and that's how it should be.

[Thisismytimetoshine]

Needing support accessing facilities is a world away from a child screaming and acting aggressively when approached in a room full of 29 other children, Mabel
I've no idea why you're conflating the two.

[Poppinjay]

@MintyMabel

It isn't unlawful - the school need to have safeguarding, a duty of care and child welfare at the heart of all decisions

And yet parents have been fined for not dragging their school refusers in. I do wonder why a school can decide not to meet their obligations for full time education but a parent can’t decide the same when it is in the best interests of their child.

They can't. It is unlawful. Every child has a right to a full time education. The school is responsible for putting the support in place that the child needs to access that education.

[MintyMabel]

Needing support accessing facilities is a world away from a child screaming and acting aggressively when approached in a room full of 29 other children, Mabel I've no idea why you're conflating the two.

Because the issue at play is the reluctance to provide adequate support staff. Whether that support is to enable my child to physically reach the classroom and assist her around the school (that part is at odds with Covid policy) or to enable OP’s child to mentally be in the classroom - it is the same thing. A school can’t simply say Covid means they can’t provide that support, they have a responsibility to make that provision.

Saying kids with disabilities just have to come last because of a pandemic is the same attitude that claims people at risk should just isolate themselves so the rest of the nation can go about their business.

Also worth remembering that for these kids and their families, homeschooling has been particularly difficult. A return to school is more than just making sure they aren’t falling behind in education.

[MintyMabel]

They can't. It is unlawful. Every child has a right to a full time education. The school is responsible for putting the support in place that the child needs to access that education.

That’s what I thought. I’m surprised to see people saying it isn’t unlawful.

[Thisismytimetoshine]

Well, we'll agree to disagree - I certainly didn't say disabled kids come last during a pandemic, I said that given we're in the middle of a pandemic it's essential to maintain the physical safety of the other children too 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Glitteryone]

I know a child who was out of education for 2 years as their behaviour was disruptive to the class. They were in the process of getting an ASD diagnosis. Their mother moved them to a wonderful school, where they’ve got on great since. However the child is very far behind their classmates work wise.

[Ellie56]

If a child is of statutory school age cannot attend school for any reason the LA has a duty to provide education under Section 19 of the 1996 Education Act.

"Each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them."

[windyautumn]

I'm not sure why people keep saying it's not unlawful to send a child home. It is. It's not like they're sick which is the only reason you can.

The needs aren't being met so behaviour happens. They either need to meet needs or formally exclude so the LEA are responsible for educating instead of the school. This creates a clear paper trail, evidence, accountability and a better, quicker outcome for children.

It's all this 'it's not unlawful, it's better for everyone, can't you see how difficult it is, you don't want her to be upset' gaslighting claptrap that puts SEN children out of education, ensures schools keep on doing it and makes things 10x worse.

[emmapemma91]

Should I have had forms to sign to say I agree to this?

[AnneofbigCleeveage]

The School Admissions Code (published by the DfE in December 2014) (issued under Section 84 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998) states that a child is entitled to a full time place in the September following their 4th birthday. In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary reduced timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs.

It is not illegal to put a student on a reduced timetable for a specified period of time. There will be paperwork , at sch, supporting and documenting this new timetable , with a beginning and end date ,which is reviewed. The register is coded accordingly.

Op, you would be better off referring to your specific local education authority and school for clarity regarding this.

[TantricTwist]

So reading between the lines this will be why they're 'outstanding' then as they make life difficult for SEN pupils and unbearable for the parents by the looks of it.

I feel for you and hope you sort it out effectively. It doesnt seem like they are prepared for this in the slightest.

[AnneofbigCleeveage]

@emmapemma91 "as I’ve said it’s mainly the unofficial exclusion. I don’t want them to think they can take the piss and I’ll just sit and do nothing".

Hi Op, it is not an exclusion at all. It is a reduced timetable. Reduced T/Ts are not uncommon and can work well re introducing SEN and other students into or back into sch.

I think there has been a bit of misunderstanding on the thread and as a result some of the advice you are being given is incorrect. Spk to sch first to establish the reason for the reduced T/T and how long it is anticipated to be in place. These are strutures put in place to support students with a view to returning to sch full time. Pls do not worry op.

[Sockwomble]

The sending home was an unofficial or unlawful exclusion.
Part time timetables have to be agreed by parents and they should be involved in the discussion, not be told that is what will be happening.

[Ellie56]

Schools cannot take unilateral decisions to place a child on a part-time timetable – this decision must be taken by the LA. So if the school is doing it off its own bat, it is an unlawful exclusion.

Your daughter is entitled to a full time education just like any other child. If she can't be in school full time, they need to be putting other provision in place for the rest of the time.

I suggest you ring the IPSEA Advice Line and get legally based advice.


www.ipsea.org.uk/advice-line

[windyautumn]

If it's a reduced timetable they are suggesting, yes, you should have forms that are reported back to the LEA with a clear plan of hours, increasing times to get back to full time and what support will be in place the rest of time etc. I'm pretty sure technically, they aren't allowed to put children on reduced timetables but the LEA will go along with it with parental consent and a very short timespan.

If they are regularly just calling you and sending home or suggesting she will need to go home early etc - it's illegal exclusion.

[AnneofbigCleeveage]

@Sockwomble I personally would interpret the collection of the student by mum, as in the best interests of the child at that time. Also in the best interests of the other 25+ children in the class , waiting to start or continue with their lesson.

This topic is always very emotive and i do respect that. There can be many (8 -10 + ) SEN children in a primary Yr grp class at any one time, all requiring the support of a limited pool of TA's or HLTAs or BFL staff , who work across all year groups. Resources are limited at the best of times. These are not the best of times.

I can understand if you are the parent of an SEN child, this can be very very frustrating. I respect and acknowledge your frustration. Equally, parents of non SEN children are equally frustrated , when their child misses out on learning opportunities and lesson is disrupted, repeatedly. It is a difficult balance.

No parents frustration outweighs the other.

The OP should be allowed to work with the school and outside agencies, to obtain a diagnosis (and suitable funding /provision/alternative provision ) without all the hysteria surrounding this thread.

It looks like OP was called in to sch today/yesterday, behaviour discussed and has initially agreed to a part-time T/T. All will be documented and on student file, as needed for presentation to OFSTED. All part time T/Ts , reduced provision and alternative provision are scrutinised by OFSTED. A part time T/T cannot be "hidden" nor can registers and absence coding be amended.

I just feel a more measured response would help the OP and her DC and possibly other readers in a similar situation. We all share a common theme and that is that we all want the best for all our children.

Other peoples experiences are not the OP's and the OP should be encouraged to work in conjunction with her sch, LEA and other authorities at this time.

[AnneofbigCleeveage]

@Ellie56 "Schools cannot take unilateral decisions to place a child on a part-time timetable – this decision must be taken by the LA. So if the school is doing it off its own bat, it is an unlawful exclusion"

Poster, can you pls post a link to the government legislative guidelines website that support that statement? You are missing some quotation marks so i am not sure if you have taken text out of context?

Can you pls send link to full site/ quote as you have posted it. I need to understand which county gov site this relates to. Many thanks.

[Sockwomble]

What matters is that schools and local authorities follow the law and it is important that parents know what the law is.
The OP didn't feel happy with the way the school was handling it and the attitude of the school and if a parent is getting that impression they are right to watch what the school does very carefully and make sure they follow the law. The OP should also only be expected to be concerned about her own child.

[windyautumn]

More gaslighting on this thread 🙄

[AnneofbigCleeveage]

@Sockwomble Agreed. All paperwork should be in place re OP's DC.

Equally, the parents of other children in that class/yr group have a right to be solely concerned about their own children and the levels of disruption in that class , inhibiting their own childs learning.

[AnneofbigCleeveage]

To add... Those parents should only be expected to be concerned about their own children equally.

[AnneofbigCleeveage]

@windyautumn " I'm pretty sure technically, they aren't allowed to put children on reduced timetables"

Incorrect:
" The School Admissions Code (published by the DfE in December 2014) (issued under Section 84 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998) states that In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary reduced timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs".

[emmapemma91]

The part time time table I’ve Agreed to, it’s best for my child. It’s the sending her home after an hour With the head teacher saying we’re can’t meet her long term needs’ and the SENco’s comment or ‘best to stay near the phone’ when she goes into school. Also no meeting Or paperwork to discuss the timetable or how to reintegrate her. Just ‘pick her up at 11.45 and we’ll review in 3 weeks’. Also the lack of planning when they knew all the information as it went through fair access panel. She only lasted 2 full days and i honestly thought they’d manage longer than that.

[emmapemma91]

I totally sympathise with the parents of other children, as I say I have a older child in special education and one of the reasons I decided on that was because it wasn’t fair on the other pupils as he was very disruptive.