Excluded from school wraparound care

[Dominoesooohoooo]

Hi all - just wondering if anyone knows if a child can be excluded from wraparound care offered at the local school for repeated acts of violence to staff and other children. To be clear this is not a proposed exclusion from the school - just of the childcare service. Particularly interested in answers based on Scotland. It appears exclusion is generally not a common path but everything I see is in relation to school exclusion (and it may be that WAC is considered to be the same?) but I see that as different as the childcare service is not mandatory or educational and is a voluntary and a paid service.

Just to explain a bit more, the WAC is offered by the school (not privately) and they have said they will not exclude by virtue of the fact they consider WAC is exactly the same as school and they are not permitted to exclude a child for any reason. A number of parents (us included) have removed our children from WAC as a result of this specific child and we believe they should be excluded as they are a danger to staff and kids alike. I’m trying to understand the rights here as there is very little guidance available to us and all the Regs etc are in relation to school (rather than WAC).

My experience is that it's impossible to have a permanent exclusion in some LAs in Scotland and temporary exclusions are rare - and brief. However, schools do not have to offer a child a place in an after-school club.

While payments are sometimes offered to staff taking extra-curriculars or after-school care, I've never heard of any member of staff having a contract which forces them to participate in them since they happen outwith normal school hours. (You might, however, have some HTs trying to 'persuade' staff.)

My experience is secondary, but Scottish schools often deal with 'difficult' children by persuading parents to accept a restricted timetable which means that their child is not around at the end of the school day. I'd be very surprised if any school wanted to keep a violent child in an after-school club.

Sounds to me as though the HT is trying to curry favour with the LA.

They're saying that they consider the WAC to be part of the school day. Sounds as though they're avoiding stating the actual position. I wonder whether there are any Scottish primary school managers on here.

Hmm. I've just Googled. So authorities have a statutory duty to provide care for certain 'disadvantaged' groups.

www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/members-business-s6m-16503-michael-marra-wraparound-care-for-children-with-additional-support-needs-may-8-2025

Might be worth writing to your Head of Education and local councillors complaining that several children are being disadvantaged because of the school bowing to the interests of one family. It would be helpful if it could be said that children from targeted groups are being disadvantaged.

The only specific info that I can find is that there's a drive to help single parents.

Yep totally this. If your child is being repeatedly violent they need to keep other staff and kids safe. Wrap around care isn't a legal requirement and I'd expect a child like that to be excluded.

edited as cross post - I hope the child is excluded so your child and other children are safe. Been through similar recently with dd.

OP I’m guessing the child in question has autism/adhd and the school feel like their hands are tied here? It’s awful and unfortunately happening in a lot of places, parents of these children effectively launch a witch hunt against whoever is against their little angels who deserve to be anywhere at the expense of other children's safety.

And I’m saying this as a parent of a child with adhd who wasn’t directly violent to other children, but wild and wreckless and would end up hurting others as a result. I did not challenge his exclusion when it happened.

Yes they can. “can’t meet need” is all it needs (my son’s best friend is a lovely child but uses a wheelchair- can’t access holiday camps or wraparound care in his wheelchair accessible school as they “can’t meet need”, aka “can’t be asked”). if they xan exclude a well behaved, independent child, they definitely can exclude an aggressive one.

Hardly a cross post! OP posted that it wasnt her child 18 hours before your rush to judgement.

Last night I was in hospital drugged up on meds feeling pretty out of it. I misread and corrected myself.

so DFOD instead of picking apart my reply because I misread.

my point still stands. The child should be removed regardless if it's the OPs child or someone else's.
OP is not in the wrong for wanting to keep her kid safe. It's a bit much picking apart a mistake in someone else's reply isn't it?

Also @Nickyknackered I'm not the only one who got confused as to which one is the OPs child but it's evident you feel duty bound to correct myself and other posters due to a simple confusion.

but weird that. but you do you.

This is kind of rubbish in that school is a legal right for all children, so the LA has a responsibility to provide an educational place for EVERY child, unless the parents have optionally decided to home educate. After school club is not something any school or LA has to provide for ANY or EVERY child. Therefore actually excluding them wouldn't deny them of a place they have any right to.

However, although giving a child a place in a club is not mandatory, they could still be in breach of the Equality Act (2010), if they were accepting children to WAC who were not disabled, but refusing to accept a disabled child.

Legally the other children have a right to attend the club without suffering as a result of this child's behaviour. This means. in theory, if WAC can show that they are making reasonable adjustments to include the child, but even with these, the child is still a detriment to others, they could still exclude them.

I guess though it comes down to whether

• they are actually bothering to make adjustments to include the child and therefore could show that they have really tried to include him.
• whether they think anyone will bother to progress a claim that they are failing to safeguard the other children.

If they think that the child's parents are more likely to be able to claim that kicking the child out is a breach of the Equality Act, than other parents are able to win a safegaurding breech claim, then keeping the child there may be what they see as the best option.

Tackle it from the angle of bullying and harassment. The school have a duty of care to your child also. Communicate with the school by email so you have a paper trail. Ask to see the bullying and harassment policy and look up GIRFEC ( getting it right for every child) Ask for your concerns of safety for your child's to be documented on SEEMIS as bullying and harassment. This will be an official document of your concerns and is available for the feeder schools and secondary school to see. Then ask for a Child Planning Meeting to be arranged as you want a plan of safety for your child. This means that they will have to give you solutions as to what they are actively doing to prevent the violence against your child and support for your child to feel safe.
My child who is ADHD experienced this. ( My child thankfully has never had behavioural problems) We let it go on longer than we should have because we thought we were being understanding to the other child’s challenging behaviour. The violence only escalated until I called a Child Planning Meeting and got a plan of safety. There were multiply children experiencing the same but I was the only parent who challenged the behaviour and reinforced that the duty of care to my son was equally important.

Yes as no childcare provider is obliged to take unwanted customer

It’s difficult but you really need to focus on your own child, how will they ensure her safety? What are they putting in place to ensure this doesn’t happen again? Rather than focus on another child even if they are the issue.