Permanent exclusion from high school

[Deeg1]

Hi looking for some extra advice my child been in a fight outside of school over the weekend and not in uniform. The latter part of the fight has been videoed which only shows my child getter the better of the other child. The other pupil approached my child first and made horrible threats and then a fight erupted . There is no evidence to show who started it. However the other pupil has done a statement and showed video and my child has been excluded permanently in less than an hour and without my child having their say or a statement. Other witness statements were taken after the decision is made. Some statements have been interfered with and input by a couple of teachers. There was no investigation prior to the decision and still no statement from my child. After sending notification to headmaster to retract as I felt it was procedurally unfair I was told of if I wanted they would retract but only if I was agreeable to a managed permanent transfer to another school. It has been put on record assaulting another pupil with no evidence of how it started. My child is achieving academically well at school and has glowing reports at parents evening. She gets detentions and things but nothing really serious. It’s set at the moment to go before governors to decide but I just feel the school have been so underhanded with the way it has conducted it. Also the other pupil in question is always in isolation and not exactly a role model pupil. Any body else been through anything similar thanks in advance

No probs OP. Couple more tips: if your child is at a school that’s part of a MAT I would ask for a pex panel made up of governors from other schools (so who don’t know the head). Also ask the clerk if they and the panel
have correct recent training. Also as PP has said on the day you and head must be treated the same - both given equal time to speak, enter room at same time, and you should be able to ask questions of the head. Your dd can attend but if they become distressed must be given time out / the chance to provide written statement instead. Lastly if it doesn’t go your way you have a right to appeal - you don’t need anyone’s permission - it’s your right.

There have now been 226 posts on this thread, with some very sensible advice from people who work in education and who have been involved in permanent exclusions and pupil discipline committees. However, despite having been asked repeatedly what she means by saying that her daughter ‘got the better’ of the other girl, the OP has still not clarified what this involved. All we know is that the girls were fighting and her daughter was on top of the other girl.

He hasn’t followed guidance, definitely make sure you attend and speak at the governors meeting. Take all correspondence printed out so you can show it’s not been a proper decision and where he has gone against policy. Don’t communicate with the head anymore or give him the evidence. Your child will learn quickly not to react in future hopefully

As others have said, there appears to be a breach in procedure, however there also appears to be a problem with your description of the events: 'a fight', 'got the better of', 'said truly evil things'....none of these are clear facts.
X pushed DD, DD grabbed X, X tripped and fell.... get a clear account written down- with everything including DDs actions (good/bad/ugly).
Your DD will need to apologise for her part, but she also needs to think about whether or not she wants to stay at a place that treats her like that.
Lastly, make sure in your correspondence you use 'could have', 'should have'... etc instead of 'could of', 'should of'.... don't let grammar detract from the validity of the points.

Im interested to know what the breach in procedure is? I don’t think the OP has been clear enough about exactly what has happened to form a judgement on that.

The alleged breaches are:

• Teachers involved in the investigation pressuring kids to write certain things. I highly doubt this is true.
• the head not having taken a formal statement from the daughter before making the decision to permanently exclude. This is can believe, and is a daft step to have skipped if for no other reason than to avoid this kind of hassle, but is not actually a necessary step if the evidence is clear cut. Being on film doing ‘it’ generally makes things pretty clear cut…

@TheEdgyZebra Thank you. So there isn’t any clear evidence of a breach in the procedures then.

The government is very clear that the views of the pupil should be taken into account prior to a PE. The pupil can also be accompanied to the meeting. It’s not good enough to not interview her and she probably needed an adult supporter present. It’s usual for another senior member of staff to do the investigation because the Head is usually a Governor and should weigh up all the evidence before excluding. There is a question hanging over how this decision was made but the outcome might well have been the same. The letter detailing the exclusion should have explained what the instigation was.

The issue is that the government is equally clear that this isn’t a must. They have left wriggle room for a decision to be made without seeking the views of the pupil. Clearly this is to resolve issues of safety for pupils and staff.

The OP states there was no investigation prior to the decision. I doubt she knows whether this is the case or not. There is no set definition of what an investigation should look like. It can be long or it can be short. It can involve questioning witnesses or not.

Im not condoning the actions of the HT it isn’t an absolute there is that he hasn’t complied with the guidance. Maybe not the spirit of the guidance but the school sounds like it is zero tolerant. He will certainly have to explain why he exercised discretion in deciding not to follow this step. It will most likely be linked to safety. Approaches to the other pupil and witnesses might be used to justify this.

@LemonTTShe should be told that the investigation concluded that the event took place and dd was excluded because of her role in it - and that was after an investigation. There’s detail about what schools should do - why write it if it’s pointless and not followed? This type of bullying head is not what anyone needs. Having a fair investigation is the norm in a decent school so, as far as possible, the situation around the case, and what happened, are known to the head so a decision can be taken with knowledge . The case does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but heads who behave like this are shameful. It’s highly likely the result would be the same after an investigation but I’d run a mile from schools like this. It’s certainly treating parents like dirt.

Surely this has to have everything to do with the video?

In view of what happened I'm assuming it shows a level of violence which is not excusable no matter what the provocation might have been.

And in that case, although for form's sake it should have happened, an interview with the child was not going to change the decision.

@ImdunferI agree, and it’s very difficult when the OP has consistently ignored all the requests to elaborate on what she meant by her daughter having ‘got the better’ of the other girl. All we know is that they were fighting and her daughter was on top of the other girl.

So, to confirm…. This pupil has a history of detentions, there’s video evidence of this fight (which presumably shows a lot more than OP is letting on despite repeated requests for more detail) and statements have been taken from other pupils that were there, both from this school and others. But because the head hasn’t interviewed the pupil (or so OP says), which he does not need to do, he is “shameful” and “a bully”?

I completely agree that he should have done a more thorough interview than the one described by OP, and my experiences of having dealt with situations like this dozens of times previously tells me that I would have done too, but not because it was necessary to form my decisions but simply to avoid ridiculous pushback and vitriol like this.

isn’t it just great that we have parents in this day and age more concerned about schools not ticking boxes in the ideal way, than a pupil beating up another one on film?

If you'd accept a permanent exclusion for your own child in this situation, then that would be your choice.

I'd be standing up for my child if this happened to us. I wouldn't want a permanent exclusion, especially for something that is quite honestly a daily occurrence at DC school. I don't like it, I don't like fighting, and if my child was involved in a fight, there would be sanctions, etc. And they would be apologising, and we would do what we could to deal with her anger, etc.

But I would not want them permanently excluded and I would be looking for any grounds to avoid it.
A stupid over reaction to nasty comments leading to life-changing consequences - it's too much.

Now, if the other child is badly hurt, if there was a weapon, if it is a police matter, then I would feel differently. I can only take OP's word that this is not the case.

The OP states there was no investigation prior to the decision. I doubt she knows whether this is the case or not

I doubt she "knows" that staff encouraged pupils to falsify evidence either, @LemonTT, though she said something about a voicenote proving it - whatever that means

For that matter the rest of us don't know exactly what happened either, but that's because OP has been unwilling to answer queries about what's on the video

The school will know much more though, and I'd say the chances of this being an isolated incident, or even having gone down as OP described it, are slim

Without knowing the school ethos and standards it’s hard to comment. The video likely shows pupil A assaulting pupil B. If the school has a policy of excluding all students who assault other pupil regardless of the circumstances, then it is probably prima facie evidence and any investigation is going to be quick. Arguably witness statements, including those from the two pupils, aren’t necessary to complete the investigation in to the conduct of the OPs daughter. They may be needed to investigate other pupils behaviour.

This wouldn’t mean the guidance recommending a meeting with the child isn’t necessary. But the guidance allows discretion on this stage. The HT should really record why he is exercising this discretion. And we can only guess what this was if it was a conscious decision or an oversight. The OP should be asking questions not making accusations or jumping to conclusions.

If I was the OP I would want to establish whether the school has a zero tolerance policy that means all pupils who assault another pupil are excluded or whether the school applies a case by case determination. Again the OP should be asking questions.

The OP should inform the school of her daughter’s accusations. But in the absence of video, her daughter is going to need people to come forward and confirm this. She is going to need people to use active statements, not “a fight broke out”, “got in her face” or they were on the ground. She does need the investigators to push for clarity on passive statements.

I don’t like people in authority using powers given to address extreme situations being used to make life easy for them or make examples (thus making life easy for them). The HT and governors have been given sweeping powers here and they should be mindful of overreach in how they exercise them.

I would hate a permanent exclusion for my child, of course I would. That’s why I’d bite the schools hand off to accept the offered managed move instead.

I would then put my energy where it belongs - into spending the summer supporting my child and helping them understand where they’ve gone wrong and how to get it right in the future, rather than wasting my time and energy fighting their school over every perceived technical failure I can find in order to help my child avoid the consequences of their actions. I certainly wouldn’t go about vilifying the members of staff at their school who have had to make such a tough decision because of my child’s poor behaviour.

But then that’s just me, and what do I know having helped thousands of kids navigate their teenage years including a couple of my own? 🤷‍♀️

@LemonTT You seem to be slightly changing your position. All schools should look at exclusions along the lines of natural justice. That doesn’t mean the head does not exclude, but the circumstances should be investigated and no one will ever say that’s fairly done if the excluded child is not interviewed. It is unusual not to ask the dd here why she attacked the other dd. The school does not know the full picture but of course, exclusion could still be perfectly correct. It’s partly about how you treat parents too. Most heads listen even if they ultimately exclude.

The members of staff (plural) make no decision at all to exclude, it’s solely the role of the head. Members of staff can investigate. It’s unusual for a parent to not try and understand what has happened. They always want to know. In terms of a behaviour and sanctions policy - all schools must legally have one and it should be on the web site. I’m slightly surprised this is permanent and detentions don’t tot up to a permanent exclusion. The act of violence has to be severe enough to warrant permanent at most schools.

I would still take the managed move and agree totally with the op making sure dd understands what a MM is and that it’s a sort of licence. Any repeated violence and there’s a huge problem on the horizon.

Whatever happens I think you need to help your daughter understand the difference between standing up for herself or defending herself and losing control.

I was a criminal.lawyer and saw nice lads ruin their lives because they did not do this. I hope things sort themselves out for both of you.