Page 17 | Deceitful behaviour from school - don't know where to turn

40andlovelife · 14/05/2025 08:13

Not an exclusion. Worked in schools for 16 years. An exclusion takes time, lots of meetings and paperwork and importantly it costs money.

prh47bridge · 14/05/2025 08:14

Onceuponatimethen · 14/05/2025 06:19

@prh47bridge just tagging you into this thread in case you have any thoughts that might help the op.

The fact OP has been to the LA suggests that this is not an academy and they have exhausted the school's complaints process. If that is the case, the only place OP could go is to the LGO, but I doubt they would get involved.

If the school is an academy, OP could refer the matter to the ESFA. However, they will only step in if the school has not followed its published complaints process or has acted unlawfully or unreasonably - much the same as the LA for community schools. OP would have more chance of getting somewhere with the ESFA if the exclusion was permanent. Since the exclusion is over and OP's son no longer attends the school, I doubt the ESFA would do anything.

The only other option would be to consult a solicitor. A solicitor's letter may produce some movement. However, I don't think court action would be worth it.

In all honesty, given that OP's son no longer attends this school, I am with those who think OP needs to let this go. I'm afraid I don't think they will ever get the apology they want.

Toptotoe · 14/05/2025 08:14

OP - I totally understand your frustration as I have been in a similar situation, however, it’s worth reminding you that life isn’t fair . . . It never had been and never will be.

You have no legal redress to this matter. Whilst your son did miss out on end of school activities, no civil court would issue damages for this and no criminal offence has been committed.

The school got it wrong and seem unlikely to issue an apology. You need to let it go. Life is not perfect and sometimes we just have to suck it up.

prh47bridge · 14/05/2025 08:15

40andlovelife · 14/05/2025 08:13

Not an exclusion. Worked in schools for 16 years. An exclusion takes time, lots of meetings and paperwork and importantly it costs money.

Yes, an exclusion. Don't care how long you worked in schools, you are wrong. Learn the law. If the school stops a child from attending lessons, that is an exclusion. The fact that the proper process was not followed means it was an unlawful exclusion.

Baital · 14/05/2025 08:15

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:06

I rather agree, except that MN is capable of being just as shitty to women posters. There's a really odd attitude on MN that schools can do no wrong, teachers are living saints, parents who are anything less than totally supportive are entitled and their children are horrible badly brought-up brats. Dare to suggest a school or a teacher is fallible and you are solely responsible for teachers leaving the profession.

Show quote history

I think most posters have agreed that the COVID policy was outdated, and the school was wrong.

The school has now updated the policy.

It is disappointing for the OPs son to miss the school leaving activities.

Disappointments are part of life, and learning to deal with them is a big life skill, more important than three days of school leaving activities that have already faded into the distant past.

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:17

ForFunGoose · 13/05/2025 23:50

Your son was a reported close contact when guidelines changed so much in schools it was hard to keep up.

I can’t believe your wife left her job for this, your justice sensitivity is beyond the normal range. I would look into this further because the world won’t stop while you wait for apologies!

Guidelines on covid were changing in 2024 so much that it was hard for schools to keep up? What guidelines exactly are you talking about?

prh47bridge · 14/05/2025 08:18

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 08:00

Nope, still not an exclusion.

Show quote history

This is a thread in legal matters. We are therefore interested in what the law says. No matter how much you deny it, what the law did was clearly an exclusion.

I repeat, if the school prevents a child from attending lessons, that is an exclusion as far as the law is concerned. The school prevented OP's son from attending lessons. That is therefore an exclusion.

You want to say that any exclusion that does not follow the process is not an exclusion. That is not how the law looks at it, nor is it how the DfE describe such things. If the proper process is not followed or the exclusion is not for disciplinary reasons, it is an unlawful exclusion.

Miffylou · 14/05/2025 08:18

Tripleblue · 14/05/2025 07:20

Everyone who is easily led "nearly died" of covid.

Show quote history

I have no idea what you mean. You think the Covid patients in hospital on ventilators, as my friend was after being taken there by emergency ambulance when, after she collapsed at home when she thought her Covid was on the mend, her oxygen levels were discovered by paramedics to be dangerously low, were only there because they were "easily led"?
How incredibly silly, and insulting.

But there’s no point in arguing with conspiracy theorist nutters. They will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of factual evidence, because they are so desperate to feel they are cleverer than everyone else. It's quite likely you also think the moon landings were faked, the Pope was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963 and Prince Philip ordered Diana's murder.

Baital · 14/05/2025 08:18

40andlovelife · 14/05/2025 08:13

Not an exclusion. Worked in schools for 16 years. An exclusion takes time, lots of meetings and paperwork and importantly it costs money.

When DD was struggling with her mental health and had suicidal thoughts her school said she couldn't come in until CAMHS said it was safe, and we had met with the school to agree a safety plan.

Was that an 'exclusion'?

I was happy that they took her health and well being seriously.

40andlovelife · 14/05/2025 08:20

Baital · 14/05/2025 08:18

When DD was struggling with her mental health and had suicidal thoughts her school said she couldn't come in until CAMHS said it was safe, and we had met with the school to agree a safety plan.

Was that an 'exclusion'?

I was happy that they took her health and well being seriously.

Show quote history

No definitely not an exclusion

Discombobble · 14/05/2025 08:21

godofthunder24 · 13/05/2025 17:33

Hi,

My son's school denied him access for 3 days last year due to his mum having COVID. Following our own research we determined that it was unlawful for the school to deny access for this reason.

Once we presented the legal advice to the school they changed their advice and altered their criteria for allowing my son back into school. It seems very clear to me that they were concerned about the repercussions of unlawful actions and tried to misrepresent their original instructions.

I complained to the school and I've gone through the complaints process with the chair of governors, a complaints panel and the DfE.

The governors have consistently provided inaccurate information during the complaints process which I strongly believe is their attempt to cover up the schools original actions. The governors have access to all of the evidence which is in email form but they continue to misrepresent that evidence.

The DfE have confirmed that the decision to deny access was unlawful.

The Local Authority are not willing to do any other than ensure the school is adhering to the complaints process from now forwards.

I am literally sick to death of feeling wronged by the school and not having a channel that will listen to me and go through the evidence in sufficient detail.

I don't really want to go down the legal route myself but feel like I'm running out of options. Would be great to hear any advice from someone in the know or someone who has been through something similar.

Many thanks,
Ian.

Do you have nothing better to do with your time?

LegallyLoopy · 14/05/2025 08:21

prh47bridge · 14/05/2025 08:18

This is a thread in legal matters. We are therefore interested in what the law says. No matter how much you deny it, what the law did was clearly an exclusion.

I repeat, if the school prevents a child from attending lessons, that is an exclusion as far as the law is concerned. The school prevented OP's son from attending lessons. That is therefore an exclusion.

You want to say that any exclusion that does not follow the process is not an exclusion. That is not how the law looks at it, nor is it how the DfE describe such things. If the proper process is not followed or the exclusion is not for disciplinary reasons, it is an unlawful exclusion.

Show quote history

Can the school tell parents not to send their children in if unwell? Like when they say the 48 hour rule for D&V, are they allowed to say that?

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:22

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 05:50

I see you are still banging on about exclusion. Your son being told (wrongly) to stay off for three days wasn’t an exclusion. An exclusion is a form of punishment for which the school, governors and LEA will follow strict processes. So if you have kept insisting they excluded him, using that terminology, and they keep saying no, and that’s why you think they have lied, then you are wrong. They did not exclude him in the formal way you are saying they did when you use the word “excluded” and that’s why you will never win this argument with them.

Show quote history

Incorrect. There is such a thing as an unlawful exclusion where due process is not followed. That is what this was.

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 08:26

prh47bridge · 14/05/2025 08:15

Yes, an exclusion. Don't care how long you worked in schools, you are wrong. Learn the law. If the school stops a child from attending lessons, that is an exclusion. The fact that the proper process was not followed means it was an unlawful exclusion.

Show quote history

It wasn't an exclusion! The child was asked to stay at home as per the school's (then outdated) sickness policy, in exactly the same way pupils are asked to stay off when they have D&V or chicken pox.

SanctusInDistress · 14/05/2025 08:29

I can imagine your upset at your son missing out. To put in context, a whole generation of year 6 students missed out on stuff during the covid restrictions, so I woukd have a chat with your son about how misadventure happens and make this a learning point for resilience for him.

regarding the school, maybe you can contact Ofsted? That will definitely make them perk up (the school). Bad governance is a red flag.

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:29

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 07:58

He wants them to own up to lying about them excluding his son. He’s fixated on “exclusion”. What they actually did was ask them to keep their son at home while mum was ill with Covid. Their son was never excluded from an educational setting in the proper sense of the word and as per DfE processes. But try telling Ian that.

Show quote history

Of course he was excluded. He was told not to come in for three days. That was an exclusion.

Have a look at, for example, the Department for Education exclusion guidance. That demonstrates that an unlawful exclusion which the school does not class as an exclusion (e.g. the imposition of a part time timetable) is still an exclusion.

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 08:29

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:22

Incorrect. There is such a thing as an unlawful exclusion where due process is not followed. That is what this was.

Show quote history

Again, this is wrong. The DfE's guidance for schools clearly states that exclusion is the formal sending home of a pupil from school for disciplinary reasons. An exclusion can be permanent or fixed-term (temporary, and sometimes referred to in government guidance as “suspension”.) Ian's son was asked to stay at home as per the school's sickness policy.

The formal sending home part is also crucial. If this had been an exclusion the way Ian thinks it was, he would've been called in and presented with the reasons for the exclusion by the SLT. They'd have had the chance to appeal. But they weren't because in the eyes of the education system, it wasn't an exclusion. Arguing otherwise is futile.

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 08:31

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:29

Of course he was excluded. He was told not to come in for three days. That was an exclusion.

Have a look at, for example, the Department for Education exclusion guidance. That demonstrates that an unlawful exclusion which the school does not class as an exclusion (e.g. the imposition of a part time timetable) is still an exclusion.

Show quote history

Exclusion only refers to sending home for disciplinary reasons. I wish people would get that.

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:32

forgotmyusername1 · 14/05/2025 06:56

I think the issue here is a conflating of terms. You want the school to admit they incorrectly excluded your son. In an educational sense they didn't and will never say they did because in education 'exclusion' means he was suspended. This comes with paperwork, reintegration meetings, something being put on his educational record. Your son was not excluded. Your son was asked to stay away in the same way that children with d&v are asked to stay away for 48 hours to prevent infection being spread around school.

It looks as though in telling the school about covid status (when it wasn't a requirement and the school had already said not to have time off unless actually ill) the idea was for your wife to have time off but it backfired when the school used previous covid policy to also ask your son to remain home.

You say the school emailed to say that the reason your son was asked to stay home was because your wife told them she had covid and that they are blaming her... factually they are correct. Had your wife not told them she had covid, your son would not have been asked to also stay home- this is a statement of fact rather than an attribution of blame.

The school used outdated covid policy to ask your son to stay home. It is unfortunate but as a result of your complaint they acknowledged their error and updated their policy. That is your victory.

They can't reverse time or throw your son the party he missed. Take the change in policy as their admittance you were right and move on

Except the school undoubtedly did exclude him unlawfully. They may not have felt they did so, but they did, and if they had read basic DfE guidance they would know that.

Miffylou · 14/05/2025 08:32

MayaPinion · 14/05/2025 08:00

But all that’ll do is get him some documents he likely already has. And what’s the point?

Show quote history

The point seems to be to make life as difficult as possible for people whose time would be much better spent in educating the children in their school, all because of the OP's unhealthy fixation (and @Silversixpenny 's encouragement of it) about something that happened nearly a year ago, when the school made a mistake and followed an outdated policy.

Some people are very odd.

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:35

40andlovelife · 14/05/2025 08:13

Not an exclusion. Worked in schools for 16 years. An exclusion takes time, lots of meetings and paperwork and importantly it costs money.

I'm amazed that you have worked in schools that long and have been unaware that this is an unlawful exclusion as set out not only in the current exclusions guidance but previous versions in place for decades. In a similar vein, schools which tell all their worst behaved children not to come in when Ofsted is inspecting, or to take long "study leave" in the second half of Year 11 are known to be unlawfully excluding them.

Baital · 14/05/2025 08:35

So schools can't send a sick child home because it would be an 'exclusion'?

That sounds unrealistic. In Enid Blyton/ Chalet School books of course there is always Matron and the San, but they were boarding schools.

In real.life children who are ill - or potentially ill e.g. after D&V - need to be looked after at home by their parent / guardian.

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:36

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 08:29

Again, this is wrong. The DfE's guidance for schools clearly states that exclusion is the formal sending home of a pupil from school for disciplinary reasons. An exclusion can be permanent or fixed-term (temporary, and sometimes referred to in government guidance as “suspension”.) Ian's son was asked to stay at home as per the school's sickness policy.

The formal sending home part is also crucial. If this had been an exclusion the way Ian thinks it was, he would've been called in and presented with the reasons for the exclusion by the SLT. They'd have had the chance to appeal. But they weren't because in the eyes of the education system, it wasn't an exclusion. Arguing otherwise is futile.

Show quote history

And the guidance also clearly describes an unlawful exclusion as an exclusion.

SuperTrooper14 · 14/05/2025 08:37

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:32

Except the school undoubtedly did exclude him unlawfully. They may not have felt they did so, but they did, and if they had read basic DfE guidance they would know that.

Show quote history

You need to read that guidance more clearly. It clearly states exclusion is about disciplinary and behaviour management. Asking a pupil to abide by a sickness policy – which, yes, was out of date – and stay away from school under the terms of that policy is not an unlawful exclusion.

40andlovelife · 14/05/2025 08:38

Nominative · 14/05/2025 08:35

I'm amazed that you have worked in schools that long and have been unaware that this is an unlawful exclusion as set out not only in the current exclusions guidance but previous versions in place for decades. In a similar vein, schools which tell all their worst behaved children not to come in when Ofsted is inspecting, or to take long "study leave" in the second half of Year 11 are known to be unlawfully excluding them.

Show quote history

I’m amazed at your weak grasp of the guidance in practice