School not letting my child from the school

[Kutika]

I have read numerous discussions where people mention that schools cannot legally prevent a child from leaving, yet I find myself in this exact situation. The school is refusing to allow my child to leave, despite my clear instructions. I've sent an email, filed a complaint with the trust, and even contacted the police, but to my surprise, none of these actions have resolved the issue. I was told by the head teacher that the law does not apply to them. Any ideas on who to contact?

If you refuse to pay for ASC and refuse to pick her up from there they're going to have to let her leave eventually. The staff will want to go home themselves.

Honestly, I’d be tempted to get a solicitor to draw up a letter to the trust. It shouldn’t be necessary, but may well be effective. In the meantime I’d just be a broken record. Don’t collect, don’t pay ASC fees, report the distress to your child to the trust every single day.

If the ASC is run by an external company then I’d be tempted to also write to their management to say that your child is being sent to their ASC without your consent and asking them whether their insurance covers liability for any injuries or accidents for children who are being held in ASC against their parents’ expressed wishes. If the ASC refuse let the school send DD to the club then that would also solve the issue.

You are missing the point.

Even for four year olds? At what point does safeguarding say it’s ok to just let them walk out alone?

Whether the school has a policy or not is irrelevant as it is not an area where school have the authority to have a policy. After school hours they have no say over this unless they have concerns in which case they report to Social Services. I would say your next course of action is to report to the academy, Social services, possibly LA (in Scotland, I'm not sure if they have jurisdiction in England) and if that fails Daily Mail

Dies she? How do we know? Anyone can say anything online (and I haven’t looked whether she says it’s ok or not - irrelevant as believing qualifications on an internet platform is bonkers).

But safeguarding shouldn’t be an issue here - year 5 is a perfectly sensible age to start giving children independence and it is a reasonable choice

for me I think the legal approach of reasonable person should be utilised and it is a reasonable one

If you think I’m wrong then please tell me where you think schools get this power. Which piece of legislation or statutory guidance is it in?

It’s not in KCSIE or the Education Act or the Children’s Act.

The guidance on Parental Responsibility from the the DfE says we can share information for Safeguarding reasons and make a referral without parental consent or knowledge but there is no power there to detain children.

This.

As much as people don’t like it, the OP has PR and can make these decisions where as school doesn’t. If the feel it is a safeguarding concern, they need to follow their safeguarding policy.
If they have a policy around children being able to leave school on their own at a certain age/ point within school, this should be written down, if it then it should be considered on an individual basis.
The after school club should not be taking the child without parental permission, what happens if the child has an accident there, their insurance won’t cover it.

Yes I wonder why we don't hear about hordes of German, Swiss or Japanese children getting run over, kidnapped etc of its so dangerous.

Lots of schools have this rule. It’s a sensible one.

Here’s the thing. You allow one child who is, ostensibly, able, then you open this up for parents of other, less able children who live further away and whose parents, like you, want to stop paying after school club fees. Or worse, the children whose parents just can’t be arsed to collect if they can seize any opportunity to do so.

Quite simply op this is a safeguarding issue and although you may feel it’s entirely unreasonable, no decent school will do anything that might compromise their safeguarding arrangements, which, I’m sure you are aware, is a statutory requirement for all those who work in schools to adhere to.

It really boggles my mind that schools in England think they have the right to dictate how their pupils get to and from school. They control what happens between 9 and 3, and that's where their responsibility ends.

In my part of Scotland, the youngest children (aged 4.5 to 5.5) are accompanied into the playground by their teacher who makes sure they can see an adult before sending them off. But after that, the bell rings, the kids come out, they go home. Some with parents, some with older siblings, some with friends. School/Headteacher does not have ANY say in this whatsoever, it's entirely a parenting decision.

Yet life in England is so dangerous and risk-laden in contrast that children are not allowed to walk home until they are 10. Absolutely, completely, mental.

I think the school is totally overstepping - they do have a safeguarding duty, but the OP is satisfied that her child will be safe walking home, and there will be someone in - as my daughter was at that age. Sometime primary school principals forget that they're not always dealing with 7 year olds, and 'because I said so' isn't always enough to explain their decisions. Principal sounds like she'd doubling down as she's been challenged, rather than engaging with the parents.

How does she get home from afterschool club? Do you pick her up?

Or Scottish children!

At four years old the school would contact social care and report it as neglect. I would then expect social care to intervene and agree a safety plan with parents. At four years old that would meet the harm threshold. It’s so unreasonable that it would meet the definition of neglect.

Nspcc says there's no law about it, so it's up to parents.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/away-from-home/at-school/#homealone

Here’s the thing. You allow one child who is, ostensibly, able, then you open this up for parents of other, less able children who live further away and whose parents, like you, want to stop paying after school club fees.

But they will allow it from April. Why is it a safeguarding issue now but won't be then? The children who live further away will still live further away.

Just feel sorry for your child really. Sounds like they have been caught in the middle, probably feeling uncertain and a bit embarrassed.

DS was allowed to walk home at the end of last year (yr4).

Our children have been allowed to meet parents at the gate (teacher can't see that far) or in their cars on the next street over since yr3.

This is absoluetely fine for the area. All the other parents know this (and know the kids meeting parents well enough).

They have put out a note before saying that they don't have a particular age that children can leave the school premises, and will judge it on a case by case, but it always needs parental permission. There are a couple of kids in DS's class who probably won't be safe to walk home by the end of yr6 and this policy gives room to make it later for some children.

There is always room for them to report safeguarding concerns around this policy though. Again on a case by case basis.

There is no 'legal age' thing, nor is there a 'safeguarding age'. There is a judgment call. This is the way it should be done. There is no magical point at which it becomes 'safe'.

Kids could be walking to school by themselves - how do the teachers know who is dropping at the gate and who is walking to school by themselves.

We've gone mad as a country over this. Glad DS's school has a policy which isn't brain dead and doesn't allow for thinking about this based on a realistic risk rather than an imagined one.

Do you have a driveway? Offer another parent a parking space in return for walking her home.

I assume they are refusing because their policy (or non policy as you say they dont have one is because if they change their rules for one they have to then consider changing for other requests.

So you only live 300m from school - which I do agree makes every sense for your child to be allowed to walk home from school. But the next parent that asks may live 400m from school, the next 500m, then 600m and then little Johnny who lives just around the corner from the child who lives 700m away wants to walk home alone.

The school have to draw the line somewhere so probably a blanket ban is just easier.

Cardi a school can use safeguarding as a reason not to allow a child of 4 to leave alone.
Children above the age of 8yo are deemed to have road sense and developed a sense of judgement of car speed etc.
the schools opinion is she shouldn't be walking home alone - but there isn't a safeguarding reason why it's not safe. (That's been highlighted or agreed by SS)

There is no justification within the remit a school has to refuse an NT child of 10yo to walk 300m along a pavement unaccompanied when it's stated a parent is at home.

If they feel the child is going home alone and is at risk they can do a MASH referral.

But again it's unlikely to yield any concerns because lots of people leave 10yo home alone for 30 minutes or do while they run an errand.

It's not about whether we think the parent is or isn't making a sensible decision. Safeguarding and neglect claims cannot be made on personal boundaries.

The same way as an unclean house doesn't signify neglect of that's the parents standards. But a child not having clean underwear would be neglect if they weren't provided with any daily.

Dies she? How do we know? Anyone can say anything online (and I haven’t looked whether she says it’s ok or not - irrelevant as believing qualifications on an internet platform is bonkers).

Cardi because I work in this same area and know what she's saying is true!

This isn't the case at all.

It is reasonable to make a case by case judgement with the support of the school based on actual risk. The school know where the kids live. They know their maturity levels. They can say no for welfare issues if there is an existing concern.

The point is not every child reaches the same point of maturity at the same time. The school can do this sensibly with this in mind.

Because there is no set age, then its down to discussion with the school. Which seems much more sensible.

Its reasonable for school to say no to one child who lives across the big road but yes to the one who lives on the same street. There isn't unfairness in this. There is sensible risk assessing.