School not being forthcoming with vital information - do I perservere or take the Data Protection Act route?

[Vallhala]

I need the minutes of an illegal interview carried out upon my daughter by a school. (Not one she currently attends, if that makes a difference).

I asked for the minutes repeatedly last week but unsurprisingly have got nowhere. I'm beyond caring if I piss the school off, but need to know whether it might be quicker to continue to demand the minutes and cc my MP into each email until the school capitulates or whether I should just send a Data Protection subject access request. I'm concerned that if I send a DP request there may be procedures which the school will conveniently decide to go through or even need to take and that this will make access to the minutes take even longer.

Has anyone any idea of how schools handle a DP request please, so I can decide which is the best way forward?

Thank you.

Do you have any expert opinion to back up your view of your daughter's emotional and mental health? A statement from an expert could be very useful as long as it says "in my opinion" rather than "Valhalla tells me".

The Admissions Code says that LAs should offer the schools additional help to reintegrate some pupils, for exmple, PRU techers continuing to work with the pupil when they have returned to mainstream school or a dual registration arrangement where, for a short time, the pupil spends part of the week in a PRU and part in the school to ensure a smooth transition.

FWIW Cambridgeshire's PRUs only operate in KS4. If your daughter is currently in KS3, Cambridgeshire's Fair Access Protocol states that EOTAS consists of one or more of the following:

• support and tuition for reasons of behaviour
• medical support and tuition
• online learning
• learner centre

The learner centre is for special needs pupils only, so it looks to me like your daughter would get support and tuition possibly accompanied by online learning. It isn't at all clear from the IYFAP how support and tuition is actually delivered, e.g. is it at home or is this a PRU in all but name.

Having said all of that, they are clearly ignoring their IYFAP and seem to be just making it up as they go along which is not acceptable. The IYFAP says in Appendix 8 that once the panel has identified a school, admission to the identified provision is expected within 2 weeks. They have clearly missed that target by miles. It also says that if a VA school refuses to admit the LA is expected to direct them to do so, not hold interminable discussions which end up with the school effectively delaying admission for a few months.

It may be worth pointing out the relevant paragraphs in the IYFAP to the LGO. I would also respond pointing out that they are clearly ignoring the IYFAP and insisting that they comply with their own procedures.

Hadn't seen your latest post when I wrote the above but I agree completely that the school shouldn't be putting additional hurdles in the way at this stage. This has taken far too long.

There has been, I read somewhere, a change of policy this year and now PRU education starts at KS3 in Cambs. (I discovered this because some while ago I read the same and thought as you did).

WRT DDs emotional and mental health - I can get the GP to confirm she had been under CAMHS I'm sure and refer the Authority/whoever to some recorded incidents in school where it is clear that she cannot cope emotionally/mentally (walking off after a meltdown, sitting under a tree refusing to cooperate with staff, talking to self and refusing to move for example).

DD is covered by Appendix SIX in the IYFAP, I am finally told. Am just about to go over that again.

I am unwilling to accept today's suggestion as, apart from DDs wellbeing and the knock on effects upon GCSE studying DD1 and I, it would take all control completely out of my hands. If the school decided at the end of the experiment PRU provision that it still didn't want to take DD we are screwed, to put it politely. Likewise if I have to pull her out because she is impossibly bullied/scared/miserable, a state which I have seen before, I will have no option on this school then, which, as I've said before, for all it's idiot behaviour, is a reasonably good one and will be best for her imho in terms of a nurturing environment.

PS - the IYFAP appendix 6 says that "All students retain some right of access to mainstream education".

Do you have any idea where/how I could go about finding out more about that right please, or what questions I should ask the LA about that assertion?

I suspected appendix 6 would be the one they would point to. However, from earlier comments it sounds to me like they started with the officer panel (appendix 8) which doesn't seem to fit with what it says in appendix 6. And your daughter isn't currently receiving any alternative provision, as I understand it, so has now missed 3 months of school.

The IYFAP is dated July 2010. It really should have been updated to reflect the current position if they have changed PRU provision. One would have expected them to know about any impending change when the IYFAP was last reviewed. Mind you, the review doesn't seem to have been perfect. Appendix 6 says that when a KS3 student is referred for a period of EOTAS they must agree a return date which "must be more than six months from the date of referral". I suspect there is a "not" missing from that sentence.

The Admissions Code says that "LAs, working with parents, should draw up reintegration plans for permanently excluded pupils at an early stage, but it is not expected that all permanently excluded pupils are to be reintegrated into a mainstream school." I think the point the LA is trying to make is that the target is to get as many children back into mainstream education as possible, but some children won't ever return to a mainstream school.

So whatever the LA say, it's inaccurate, unreliable, out of date or just plain bull!

At the moment I intend to sit back for a few days, recharge my batteries and consider my next move.

Half of me is inclined to say, okay, go ahead and direct the ruddy school... only don't give me this rot about you "may" do so, "if it is considered that the school's reasons for refusing admission are not substantial", because the IYFA says that if a school refuses to take a child, then the LA "WILL direct" under the SSFA.

The other half is going back to the original argument that this shouldn't be haooening and thus I'm tempted to wait to see what the LGO have to say. It's a long wait though, with the LGO quoting a turnaround of about 13 weeks, possibly more.

So, another couple of days while I think it over and where it is me doing sweet nothing for once won't hurt I guess.

Is the PRU in the county town beginning with 'H' in the west of the county?

Probably not much help, but if it is one of my sons friends went there for a year, she had been failed abysmially by her previous school, educationally and socially, and was sent to the PRU for 'behavioural issues'. She was the only child there with no criminal record. Though she had some problems in the PRU with bullying, the staff did their best to sort out the issues, changing the kids timetables etc. Helped by the children being part time. She succeeded in getting some qualifications she wouldn't have got otherwise and p/t education suited her better than f/t.

Good luck.

The school's course of action would be sensible in many situations. I don't obviously know the background to your daughter's exclusion, which may be tainting their judgement as to what should be done. You cannot argue that a period of time preparing your daughter to succeed when they go full time at the school is not a good idea, it is the most sensible idea but it should have happened 3 months ago, as should the risk assessment.

The problem is that your reaction is the same as mine, given what has already gone on, you wonder whether this is a means of keeping your daughter out of the school in the hope you will go elsewhere.

The one good thing that has been said is that your daughter will have dual registration. That means that they cannot just wash their hands of your daughter. My reaction is to go back and make your concerns known about the vunerability of your daughter to bullying and how they will handle this and also ask for a clear timeline for assimulation into the mainstream school. Anything more than a month is just too long.

I know that you have real reservations about the PRU but you do have to give a little in this arguement and maybe that little bit is agreeing a very short period of time in the PRU under very strict conditions about her contact with other students. Trouble is that the need to trust the professionals has been completely shattered by your experience and it really does come down to what are your prepared to accept or believe

Thank you Admission. As I said, I'm giving myself time to calm down before I get too stroppy think and have a break from constant emailing and arguing but I do agree that it might be a partial step in the right direction IF DD had a guarantee of a place in the mainstream school after a specified short time.

What I fear is that the school and/or LA will use this suggestion to get themselves off the hook wrt their legal responsibilities and then STILL refuse DD a place in the school at the end of the period of time at the PRU.

Plus, and most importantly, atm, DD is refusing point blank to go to a PRU - she knows the type of child she will meet there and is petrified, having been on the receiving end of particularly unpleasant and frightening bullying already... and as she put it, "That was when I was in a normal school Mum!".

I can't see any way of convincing her to go and I sure as hell can't physically force her so the LA and I are in stalemate. Yesterday I asked the LA Inc Manager to confirm that the school definitely is refusing to take DD as the wording, "the Head would want DD to have a period of time in Alternative Provision" is a bit ambiguous. Is he saying he'd prefer it or that he is refusing to have DD unless he gets it? No reply on that question yet or to what type of provision and what guarantees they would offer.

I'm not holding my breath for a rapid response or to a convincing one tbh. I feel I may just have to sit tight and wait several more weeks for the LGO to do their stuff. At least I sent all the emails between the LA and I over to them last night so barring the "meeting" minutes they have all the evidence.

Minx, sorry, I'm so caught up in all this I forgot to answer you!

No, it's Cambridgeshire LA. I have given up on anonymity and now am more than willing to let everyone know that Cambridgeshire Local Authority knowingly breaks education law!

Thank you though for your insight and kind wishes.

There's good news and stupid news.. and some Paxman moments.

The good news is that the Ombudsman rang today and is taking on the case as he is confident that there are issues that need looking into.

The stupid news is that the Inclusion Manager emailed me to ask if I will be taking up the PRU place for DD, admitting that they cannot make any guarantees about when or if DD would be admitted into mainstream school but that the Head of the school anticipates that DD could be in school full-time for the Summer Term!

That's six months away!

I meanwhile continue to feel that even if DD were to agree to go into a PRU my objection to the illegal actions carried out by both the school and the LA will severely prejudice DD's chances of being permitted a place in the school no matter what she's like in six months time. I don't trust them not to take it out on DD.

Besides, six months minimum is just taking the pee.

And the Paxman moments?

FOUR times over the past 24 hours I have asked the Inclusion Manager the same question - i.e. whether the School are formally refusing to admit DD despite the written offer of 8th November (as opposed to merely putting up objections/alternatives because they don't want to admit her).

I have so far been told:

That the Head "would want" DD to spend a period in alternative provision.

(Yes, but that's not what I asked, is it?).

That "We can confirm that DD has still been allocated a place at the school..."

(Yes, but that's not what I asked, is it? I asked if the school were refusing to abide by the allocation decision).

That "I can confirm that the Head is happy to put her on roll and support her integration as outlined below." - i.e. dual registration but education in a PRU for a minimum of 6 months with no guarantee of admission into the school which has already offered her a place in fecking writing!

(Yes, and guess what, THAT wasn't what I asked either, was it?!).

The last time I repeated the question that I need answering with a simple yes or no was at 2pm. The LA offices are now closed.

I reminded myself today that although I must remain polite I don't owe the Inclusion Manager tolerance. She either knowlingly broke the law when she sat in on that illegal interview without a word or she doesn't know what the hell she is doing. Either way she deserves sacking!

So, the saga continues...

great news about the ombudsman!

do you ever stop to consider the harm you may br inflicting on your daughter by being so argumentative???

you really have got her off to a nice, healthy, positive start in this school.

possibly it's your attitude that the school are concerned with as opposed to your daughter's?

i can't believe for one minute that some of this hostility hasn't been noticed by her?

but hey, i'm sure you will put me right on the facts and give me a good dressing down about my attitude!!

i would suggest you calm down, eat some humble pie and try to work with the authorities rather than alienating them further.

nightshade, I think its a bit out of order to attack Val for being angry with the LA. How do you know that she is 'argumentative' in front of her DD?

I think sometimes you have to be firm with the authorities to get them to do the right things - you sometimes run across people in these sorts of jobs who will break rules to suit themselves knowing that most people won't challenge them on it. These people have broken their own protocols and the law and they deserve to be called out for it.

Nightshade - the reason Valhalla is being advised by two of the admissions experts on here (Admission and myself) is that the school is behaving appallingly and the LA is failing to fulfil its responsibilities. The LGO clearly has concerns as they have taken the case. Between them the school and the LA have broken the Admissions Code and the law, as a result of which the OP's daughter has been out of school for 3 months and rising. The LA is not being at all proactive in resolving the situation and is failing to follow its own Fair Access Protocol, quite apart from the other breaches. The time for her to be reasonable with them has long since gone. She has every justification for being argumentative with them. Indeed, not long ago she was concerned that she was being unfair to them. Both Admission and myself advised her that the time for being fair has long since gone.

This started on another thread where it became apparent that the school at which she had been offered a place did not want to admit Valhalla's daughter. This was before she had got argumentative with anyone, despite the fact that the LA and school were clearly dragging their feet and her daughter had been out of school for far too long. The school then broke the law by conducting a hostile interview that was clearly intended to decide whether or not they were going to admit the child. I agree with Admission that their latest action feels like trying to keep Valhalla's daughter out of the school. I am sure that if the school have their way she will never be admitted.

Based on what has happened so far, if Valhalla tries to work with the authorities we could still be here this time next year trying to get her daughter back to school. The authorities need to obey the law, conform with the Admissions Code, follow their own policies and fulfil their responsibilities towards Valhalla's daughter.

Considering how appallingly the school have behaved is it really the best school for the daughter to attend or is it the only one available?

Nightshade, that's ridiculous. Valhalla has found out they are breaking education law. Why should she eat humble pie and back down?

Thank you all for your invaluable, heartwarming support (well, almost all of you!). :o

Rest assured, I have no intention of backing down (or rising to the bait ).

So far I have had no response to the simple question as to whether the school is officially refusing to admit DD.

I bet I'd get a fast response if I emailed to tell the IM that I'd love to take up the offer of a PRU for at least 6 months with no guarantee of a proper, mainstream education at any point thereafter, and that thus I was no longer taking action through the LGO.

'Tis a pity that, because I have no intention of doing so whatsoever!

DiscoDaisy, the school is, without trying to identify it for DDs sake, a unique one in a particular way, which is a good thing. It has good academic results (not the best, I'm not aiming for the best OFSTED-scoring school in the county) and a very good pastoral/support/nurturing reputation, which is key AFAIAC.

If I aimed for another school, the problems would be:

A. Starting from scratch, which would take more months.

B. No idea or guarantee of which school I would be offered and having no option but to take what I was offered no matter how bad it might be.

C. An equal chance that the NEXT school might refuse to take DD, need to be directed to do so, then decides to appeal the direction... all of which will add yet more weeks and weeks.

It is particularly that I have no idea what the next school would be until I'm told of it that concerns me. This and the school I'm struggling with's small size and unique abilities make me as sure as I can be that DD will stand more chance of happiness, emotional safety and success there than elsewhere.

Vallhala,
Could I suggest that if you now have a contact at the LGO you send them an email with in effect a verbatim report of the four requests to answer a simple question that the IM failed to answer. Ask the LGO to phone the IM or anybody else they want to in the LA to get a simple straight answer, so at least you know where you stand.

Your post about 6 months in the PRU simply reinforces the belief that as soon as your daughter is in the PRU you will hear nothing from the school about any school place. Do not accept anything unless there is an offer of a place at the school in writing with no conditions, preferably in somebody elses blood!

Admission I think we love you here! :o

That's very much how I feel - thank you for verifying that's how I should feel and that I'm not just being spectacularly unreasonable.

I shan't accept their ruddy silly offer - but as I am being made to wait for my answer, they can wait for theirs, at least til Monday now.

I shall indeed ask the LGO to get the answer as to whether the school are refusing or merely whinging - thank you for the advice.

I received this morning the "minutes" of the "meeting". You were right! All I can say is that the minute-taker did a hell of a lot of writing during that "meeting" bit very little of that was on the piece of paper I received this morning.

I have to rush now but will give you anidea of it later.

Still not amused.

You could be really naughty and put in an FOI request for the handwritten notes taken by the clerk of the meeting, as the official minutes do not seem to accord with your recollections of the meeting. That will have a few officials huffing and puffing but i bet you don't get them.

I'm liking that idea Admission and will be following your advice this evening. :o

Meantime something odd has happened. I got an email from the IM this pm telling me that,
"As I outlined previously the Head is not formally refusing to admit DD."

Now, apart from the fact that if she had previously outlined any such thing I wouldn't have had to ask her for an answer four times, it's also clear that she was anxious not to tell me that at all if she could help it. Could it be that they would prefer me to accept the PRU thinking that I had no choice?

She went on to say that the offer of the PRU remains, that she's "concerned to" move things forward and she offered to arrange another meeting at the school, this time with the Head, to "discuss the Head's plans [at the PRU] for DD". Will I contact her to tell her if I'm going to be "taking up the place for DD" and whether I'd like her to arrange the meeting?

I was contemplating telling her that I had already taken up a place... the place at the school, when I suddenly got an email recall message from her address. I've since learned that because I was in my inbox when it arrived it tried but failed to delete her message from my system. Pity, that. :o

Why she tried to recall the email is a mystery. It may be a system error of course... but if it isn't she's going to be mighty irked when she discovers that the recall failed. :o

I think I'll leave my 'thanks but no thanks, we'll see what the LGO have to say, shall we' letter of response until sometime in the week, to see whether she follows tonight's farce up first.

After all, I've waited this long, a few more days won't make much difference.

Forgive me for being stupid but what has the head of the school you want got to do with what your daughter will do at the PRU. PRUs have somebody in charge and whilst it is clearly good practice to liaise with the school that is intended for the pupil longterm, the PRU runs itself not the head of another school.
I might be tempted to go back and say yes you want another meeting but it is not to discuss anything to do with the PRU, it is to discuss how the school is going to handle the reintegration of your daughter to the school, which you expect to happen before Christmas.
Whilst i am not dismissing the PRU as a very short term re-integration technique, you do need to be sure that you do not send the wrong message to the school and more importantly the LGO.

In my experience recalling an email rarely has the desired effect.

I would agree with Admission that the only thing you want to discuss is how they intend to reintegrate your daughter (and, indeed, how they intend to make up for the 3 months of school that your daughter has missed due to their failures). Since the Head is "not formally refusing to admit" your daughter you can say that you are indeed taking up the place for your daughter AT THE SCHOOL and are happy to discuss her start date and other arrangements.