To not be fobbed off with "data protection" as an excuse?

[KER90]

Have name changed for this just in case it's identifiable.

DS is 6 years old and in Year 1. Last week he was attacked by another child, who is in year 2. He was left with marks around his neck and a mark and lump on his head. DS doesn't know the other child's name, he's not in his class (mixed y1 & y2) and he's not even sure if he is in the other mixed class or the year 2 only class.

DH has been to speak briefly to the head today as he wants to know what the school have done about it as all we were told on the day of the incident was that the other child had "been dealt with". She tried to fob him off with "data protection" as an excuse for not being able to tell us what they have done. Just that it had been "severely dealt with".

Now, I think this is just a vague response in order to avoid admitting they've done sweet FA. Hoping that we go oh okay no worries and just forget about it. It's not giving out personal or identifiable information and as above, we don't even know who the child is. Surely when it comes to safeguarding, they should be able to tell parents what measures they are putting in place to protect their children? The way in which DS was assaulted, is, in my opinion, not the kind of thing you do as a first time offence, it is serious and if I had done that to another adult, I would be arrested and probably jailed. Just because they are under the age of criminal responsibility, it doesn't mean they should do nothing about it. If it's not dealt with now, who knows what that child will go on to do in the future.

"Severely dealt with" is also surely a matter of opinion? They may think it's a severe punishment, but I might not, and vice versa. For example has the child been "told off" or "lost certain privileges" or has he been suspended? Bit of a difference.

We are going back in on Friday for a more formal chat and DH has told the head that he wants answers to his questions and we are not going to let it go until we are satisfied with the response. She seemed very flustered and didn't quite know what to say, which tells me that she knows she can't bullshit her way out of this situation with her usual tactics.

Thankfully, DH is, shall we say, very assertive, but does anyone with inside knowledge of this type of thing have any advice?

Thank you.

This is the concern, the minimising violent behaviour. It's even happened on this thread.

it left marks? police?

You bother because you now understand information that you previously didn't know and/or understand. As a result, you've changed the approach you're going to take in your next meeting/call/whatever with the head.

Whilst it may not have been the response you wished for, it appears the thread has been successful in improving your position relative to the one you had before you started it.

😆

And no not minimising violence OP, just not wanting to perpetuate it via an 'assertive ' husband and demands for punishment

And you've come to this conclusion how??

How has violent behaviour been minimised on this thread or by the school?

You are all minimising it though. The OP just wants to know that her kid isn't going to get their head kicked in again.

It's more the other way round. If you are given a lot of personal information about how child X has been punished because you don't know who child X is and can't attribute it to any particular child - what happens when, almost inevitably, you do find out who child X is? You may not know now, but the chances are that at some point your child will work it out. After all, he probably sees X regularly and only has to ask his friends what the name is.

At that point you know all about child X including his name, how he's been punished, and potentially other confidential information about whether, for instance, the school is looking into SEN or is looking Into his home circumstances in case these are relevant to protecting your child. That's why the school has to be careful. Sometimes you have to put up with less than black and white answers because children's welfare comes above yours.

She hasnt said that or implied it at all.

She simply is pissed off because she isnt going to be told what 'punishment' the other child has got and get to choose something else if she deems is not enough.

Knowing what the punishment is, isnt going to prevent the incident happening again. The focus is totally wrong and says a lot about how she views children.

Can you offer an example of minimising?

And, no, the OP wanted to know exactly how the other child had been "dealt with" as that answer was too vague and she felt she had the right to know. She has since been armed with the right questions and lines of inquiry in order to see how the school will safeguard her child.

What does it say? You've drawn all these conclusions of me off of very little written information and have yet to respond when I ask you to elaborate??

Oh I don't know, what about well they might have SEN, or they might have a violent home life? So that makes it ok to take this out on my child does it?

As has been said numerous times, if OP wants to know that her child won't have their head kicked in again, then she needs to clarify what safeguarding measures are in place to protect her child. This doesn't necessitate knowing what is happening with the other child.

I understand why OP wants to know everything, but equally she needs to understand that she can't know everything.

Saying the same thing fifty different ways won't change that.

Thank you I do understand that bit now.

The problem is that you may well not feel the school's actions are sufficient precisely because they can't give you personal information. They may, for instance, have realised that this is a child with SEN and therefore they can't punish him for the results of his disability; and they may instead have followed the relevant guidance and put in hand a full SEN assessment and CAMHS referral. But they can't tell you all that, which will mean you feeling that he hasn't been punished sufficiently.

This is one of those things where yes we can see why you would want to know, but unfortunately you can't know. Arguing with them isn't going to change data protection law - which incidentally has a higher bar when children are involved. Concentrate on how they are going to keep your child safe.

“How are you going to protect my child?” Is a perfectly valid question.

“what punishment has the other child faced?” Is not.

Nobody has said that having SEN or currently living in an abusive home justifies the behaviour of this child. They have said, again, that those might be reasons why you are not entitled to the information that you feel entitled to.

And I'm "fixated" on the punishment because 1 - that's the info they won't tell me and 2 - that's what this post is about?
I know they will tell me about safeguarding measures until the cows come home, so that is not my focus. My focus was wanting to know why they won't tell me as I didn't understand, I understand now.

Your focus has been solely on the punishment and you say yourself you wont take no for an answer. You have said yourself you want to know if its 'appropriate' or not and if not you want to take it further.

That is all people need to know about you, you've painted the picture of yourself all by yourself, dont come the naive 'oh I dont know how people have got this view of me'.

Can you share the post which says that SEN or a violent home life makes this behaviour ok? I cant find it.

What you've been told is that these things might be in play and you have no right to know about them. They cannot explain the actions being taken without explaining these things and you cannot know these things.

No one had minimised it. No one has said the behaviour is ok. We have told you that you have no right to know about this other child.

You do not know the circumstances. I can think of a lot of reasons and this attack doesn't sound like a normal 'lashing out' anyway. OP has no right for more information other than how the school will ensure protective measures have been taken.

So being reassured that the child is being severely dealt with and then a meeting about how her child will be kept safe is exactly what is needed and what has been offered. But apparently that wasn't brought for the OP as they, so some reason, don't believe that severely dealt with actually means severely dealt with, but is just the school fobbing her off. I suspect the OP was hoping that the majority of posters would back her up with tales of being told what sanctions / punishments other kids have been given in similar circumstances, and lots of validation that the head clearly was just "bullshitting" her. Unfortunately she's been told the exact opposite. It's never nice to be wrong, is it?

What picture have I painted of myself? You haven't answered my question.

I said we won't be be fobbed off by wishy washy bullshit answers. The avoidance by the school to tell us had me under the impression that it meant they'd done nothing and were trying to get out of admitting that.

I think it's reasonable to want to know how and that something was dealt with accordingly and to complain if it isn't. Especially when it comes to my children. Obviously the school and the law don't agree with that but in any other circumstances I don't think people would be so quick to accept that.

I do sincerely appreciate the information,and it makes sense,and I understand the reasons for it.
At the same time,I can absolutely understand the parents of the victim,which they are, needing a lot of reassuring:if you are just told "we've dealt with it",without acknowledging that the safe guarding policies didn't catch this potential behaviour before, and explaining how it will be stopped going forward,then I think some distrust, or wanting reassuring they can't have about the original event, is a natural reaction.