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?

So you think it is a grey area up to the age of 16 but fine for schools to let children walk home regardless as long as they have reached the magical age of nine and it is after Easter? Did your safeguarding training explain why it is safe for nine year olds to walk home from school after easter but not before?

Its apparent that you are clueless about the principles of safeguarding.

It's astonishing that there are still people who (claim) to work in schools, still don't understand the duty to report safeguarding issues.

For anyone who doesn't know, that's so that someone with a greater oversight has the chance to put together pieces of a jigsaw. With the aim of avoiding the tragedies we've seen in the past.

Out of interest, do you think the school was right in not reporting this issue?

The school will definitely have a policy on what to do when a child isn't picked up from school and I pretty much guarantee it will involve a social services referral. If you aren't happy with the schools policy (written or not) on this then you can always move your child to another school.

read the thread

If I were at the school and had to put up with your wholly uncooperative behaviour, I would be telling you to go elsewhere and find another school that you are happy with. It's so combative and unnecessary.

But the rules say this and if you respect the law you should follow the rules because they ARE school law. If you disagree you should be arrested and sentenced to four years imprisonment for child abuse without trial. You should not critically think because this is dangerous and every teacher will leave education if you engage your brain.

Sometimes my head hurts at the logic.

The law leaves it to the discretion of PARENTS. This overrules schools UNLESS they have a specific concern. A school can not override parental wishes without a safeguarding concern. They need parental consent to do numerous activities and events outside normal school hours. They certainly can not decide they disagree with your decision, then try and charge you for this disagreement and then have no safeguarding concern they are not willing to either discuss with you or refer onto social services.

This is not a 'school policy' like wearing a tie. It's a life skill and an issue which affects family income which may have significant impacts. It is important for children to start developing life skills to enable them to attend high school age 11.

Therefore parents are within their rights to not just accept an arbitrary 'not until April' rule which has no basis in logic or law.

This does not mean all kids should be treated the same. They absolutely shouldn't be for safeguarding reasons. There are a small number of children who aren't safe to walk to school alone at primary school at all. The school should be able to flag concerns for them about walking alone in May next year if it is appropriate. This is after this bonkers April magic point. This is why the April point is fucking ridiculous and meaningless. It somehow is being used as a way to say that after that point the school no longer has the same duty of care to children and that all children are suddenly magical safe when they weren't in March.

There is no way you can do this without doing it on a case by case.

It would be legitimate to say that we are concerned about X walking home by himself age 9 and 10 months because he has this significant road to cross and there are known issues with children under a certain age being able to assess speed and distance of cars and we want to air on the side of caution and make it year 6 just to be on the safe side. However it's fine for Y to walk home by himself because he lives much closer and there are no significant roads even though he's younger. Z might have significant SEN needs and be the oldest in the year and live the closest and the school could still refuse on the grounds of safety in April.

The parents of X could the challenge this - the school has raised the concerns as it's effectively in this 'gray area' and have covered their backsides, but ultimately the default should come down to parental wishes. The parents have understood and agree to the risk. Great. Even if something does happen parents can't sue the school, school has covered safeguarding duties and everyone has tried to centre the childs interests but shit happens.

The parents of Z could challenge this - the school has raised concerns as it's effectively in this 'gray area', social services look into the case and see significant reasons why the development of this child is delayed and raised questions about their ability to cope with walking home alone and say yes this is of concern and go back to the parents to explain why it's inappropriate and they are worried. Everyone's acted in the best interests of that child.

Meanwhile Ys parents don't have to raise a challenge because everyone has stayed sane and has recognised it makes shit all difference in September or April if they are capable of walking home. Cos they understand how safeguarding works and how this interacts with parental wishes

Safeguarding and parental wishes and grey areas don't just meet when it comes to walking home. There are other scenarios where it happens. We should understand and recognise this. And how it should be judgment calls not dates on a bloody calendar.

But no. We should act like Muppets and nod along with 'school rules' being law because 'they say so'.

If we didnt occasionally question the decision making process of authority, no whistleblowing would ever happen. We should have a culture where we do stand up and go 'hmm this doesn't quite work and sit well with me because of X reason. Because that safeguarding. And there shouldnt be 'punishment bad references to grammar school' or any other form of back lash against the child or other coercively disguised guilt trips by either school or parental peers here. Cos everyone has the best interests of that child centred... Right?

I despair some days.

Erm. Schools can't do this. There are reasons why they can't.

"For anyone who doesn't know, that's so that someone with a greater oversight has the chance to put together pieces of a jigsaw"

More like to facilitate inter agency cooperation in many cases I'd say. Unless this family is known to social services already I'm not sure there'd be an individual at SS with more insight into this situation.

So many people seem to think the school has not consulted ss already. As I've previously said there's zero doubt that the school will have the order this incident on their own safeguarding records.

As a pp said sometimes SS won't take action until the school has built up a base of evidence or a pattern of behaviour/incidents.particularly in cases of neglect....

There is a mandatory legal requirement to report ALL safeguarding concerns in Wales as a teacher. This isn't the case in England. You may belong to a professional body which makes reporting mandatory though.

So actually it depends on where you live on this and you exact position.

😂 just when I thought the levels of 'clueless' couldn't actually get any worse.

“So you think it is a grey area up to the age of 16”

That’s not what I said. I said that somewhere between the obvious extremes there will be a grey area. Not everywhere in that range.

“Did your safeguarding training explain why it is safe for nine year olds to walk home from school after easter but not before?”

No, my common sense explained that after Easter it will always be clear daylight before and after school and that the weather will generally be better, etc., so that’s a sensible time to make the change. It’s what they did at our school and to the best of my knowledge no parents called the police about it.

absolutely combative and unnecessary.

why is that clueless that you are so clever about judging

no wonder teachers are leaving with parents like this

You'd attempt to unlawfully off-roll a child? Good job you're not at a school then

Believe me. Hard working parents, who are trying to instill life skills and independence, are not the reason teachers are leaving!

@Walkden I do see your 'grey area' argument and I think you make a valid and reasonable point about age cut-offs.

The mistake you make is in thinking that any subsequent disagreement arising from this debate between school and parent is an even-handed one. It isn't. Both in theory and in practice the relevant authorities will support the parent in such a debate. The onus is wholly on the school to provide evidence of a safeguarding issue specific to this debate or they will be advised to follow the parents' wishes.

'The grey area' does not evaporate in April next year.

For some kids there still will be a 'grey area' beyond April where schools can and should refuse to allow a small minority of children to leave the premises without an adult. With good reason.

So you have no idea what the "grey area" is despite your extensive safeguarding training but you are sure the schools know and think it is their decision. If that's the case why isn't the policy the same at all schools?

As for your common sense regarding Easter, OP lives in England and it is always light at the end of the school day, not that it makes much difference. The grey area isn't going to magically disappear when the weather is better.

It's clear that having done lots of safeguarding training does not equal understanding safeguarding principles.

It just means you say in a room, listen to a lecture or did an online course and got ticked off whilst you absorbed nothing.

I've never argued that it does. But at any time of year the burden of proof lies with the school – they have to show that good reason you mention. If they can't, then the relevant authorities will defer to the parents' wishes, and tell the school to do the same.

So you have no idea what the "grey area" is despite your extensive safeguarding training but you are sure the schools know and think it is their decision?

You seem to be struggling with the concept of a grey area, among other things, so we are wasting each other’s time. I’ve already explained, further upthread, what I mean. I will try another time. We all (I assume) agree, that pre-school is too young to walk home alone, but that teenagers are clearly old enough. Somewhere in between there will be disagreements. The OP thinks that nine is old enough, some schools would agree, others would not. What about eight? Seven? Six? Wherever a school draws the line, an individual parent may disagree.

If that's the case why isn't the policy the same at all schools?

Because there are grey areas. Also because there can be other factors at play in individual schools.

Or the school can accept they aren't right in this single point, file up the parental consent letter and let the child go home.

I am not struggling with the concept of a grey area. I am just unclear on what you think is a grey area, and why you think in that situation schools can overule parents and withhold children without consulting the authorities. Multiple people have explained to you they can't keep children at school without parental permission or advice from the authorities but you keep arguing otherwise.

I am not struggling with the concept of a grey area. I am just unclear on what you think is a grey area, and why you think in that situation schools can overule parents and withhold children without consulting the authorities. Multiple people have explained to you they can't keep children at school without parental permission or advice from the authorities but you keep arguing otherwise.