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

[godofthunder24]

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.

No, it wouldn't be an exclusion. However, telling a child not to come in when there is neither a disciplinary nor health reason is an unlawful exclusion.

I agree with every word of this. I too kept thinking "But that’s not what 'exclusion' means in educational parlance." The comparison with being asked to stay away from school after having D&V is exactly right. In this instance the school got it wrong as they were following an outdated policy, which they have now changed.

If OP is hoping for an apology about an "exclusion" he will never get one, because it wasn't an exclusion. He needs a new hobby. I pity the family of such an obsessive man who is so fixated on everyone acknowledging that he was right.

Well, there was a health reason. An outdated reason, which has now been updated.

The bitchin is real.

It's not an exclusion! Parents bandy the term exclusion around in the same way they think a classmate not inviting their DC to a birthday party amounts to bullying. Once again, for the hard of reading, the specific term "exclusion" when used in a schools setting refers to a pupil being formally asked to leave school on disciplinary grounds. It is NOT what happens when a kid is abide by the 48-hour sickness policy to stay off with D&V or the like.

@godofthunder24, I can understand how aggrieved you feel.

Your wife informed the school in good faith she was infected, to avoid infecting others just as they were going on holiday. I’m not clear if she had to, but it’s doubtful. This then resulted in your son unnecessarily missing his last exciting, memorable days of primary school. Then, when you challenged them, they’ve doubled down. Not great at all.

Is it more a misunderstanding? You argue they excluded him and they argue they simply asked you to keep him off (even though you didn’t have to) which you could’ve refused to do.

I agree, in a normal world, they should apologise for a misunderstanding. For example, if they gave you the impression they had the power to exclude him, which they agree they didn’t. They understand this meant your son missed his last few days of primary saying goodbye to his friends and teachers.

But the normal world doesn’t apply when most public institutions are very wary of litigation. Especially since the proliferation of ‘No Win, No Fee’ ‘claims farmer’ legal firms. And having to pay money they can’t spare on legal advice, representation and (possibly) compensation. When it could be spent on paying staff salaries, other bills and extra help or equipment for pupils.

So, they tend to avoid admitting any kind of liability that could result in a claim. For example, if they even acknowledge (and certainly apologise for) the distress caused to your son for being off, there’s a risk it could be cited in a claim for compensation of (i) them admitting liability for him being off and (ii) them admitting your son was caused harm and thereby you having a claim for compensation.

If you’ve exhausted the school’s complaints process, I’m sure they’ve learned their lesson, which was your objective in complaining. Next time, they shouldn’t ask if a pupil can miss the last few days of primary school because their parent is a member of staff. When any other pupil in that situation would have attended because the school wouldn’t have known their parent had Covid. I’d say you’ve achieved your objective in making them reconsider their approach.

But I doubt you’ll get an apology if that’d risk admitting liability.

If medical professionals recommended keeping her off school, this was authorised absence.

If the school provided tuition to allow her to keep up with her education, this was not an exclusion.

However, if there was no recommendation from medical professionals and no tuition was provided, it was an unlawful exclusion. However, I clearly don't know all the details. This may have been one of those rare instances where an unlawful exclusion was objectively justified, in which case I don't criticise the school for going down this route.

No, that wasn't an exclusion. However, if your daughter had been perfectly capable of going into school with appropriate support and the school and refused to allow her to do so, that would have been an unlawful exclusion.

Yep. Teachers definitely discuss the batshit parents in the staff room. It’s cathartic especially when working in the often stressful environment of a school.

They'll have also set up a diversion on Ian's emails so they are sent straight to a separate folder, possibly entitled "That Parent" so they're not clogging up the school's inbox.

Technically, they can't prevent a child from attending. However, given that medical advice is that children should not attend until 48 hours after the symptoms stop, this would be classed as a medical absence rather than an exclusion and schools won't get into trouble for having such a policy.

It was for a few days, while she was assessed and the school put support in place.

It seemed appropriate to me, and I was happy with their actions, although in my judgement DD could have gone in safely.

My point is that schools routinely have to make a judgement about whether a child is well enough or not well enough to be at school. That isn't an 'exclusion ', surely?

Well you started it Ian...

OP, you should consider studying to be a lawyer or advocate for some organisation. You would be great.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't change the fact that, by law, it is an exclusion. Or are you saying the DfE doesn't know what it's talking about when it points out that, for instance, a school that tells a parent to keep their child home due to their SEN is unlawfully excluding them?

To tell you yet again, what you describe is a legal exclusion. DfE guidance is clear that telling or forcing a pupil to leave school, or not allowing them to attend school, is an exclusion. If the exclusion is not on disciplinary grounds or the correct process has not been followed, it is an unlawful exclusion.

You clearly don't know the law if you think that stopping a pupil from attending is not an exclusion. It is.

@godofthunder24 Can I suggest that you let it go and continue your life?

Sending a child home because you are operating an unlawful sickness policy is an unlawful exclusion. You tried to say that an exclusion only happens when due process has not been followed - it's interesting that you've shifted your ground.

And they will have most likely recommended the secondary school’s pastoral team keep an extra eye on Ian’s kid, in the handover notes, as Dad is clearly an unstable person.

It's equally incorrect to say that "the formal sending home part" is crucial. There can equally be an exclusion when a parent is simply told not to bring their child in, e.g with the unlawful imposition of a part time timetable.

Of course it is in that situation. Refusing to meet their long term needs, despite adequate notice.

This situation is equivalent to schools saying pupils shouldn't come in for 48 hours after an episode of D&V. A brief period for a specific transmissible illness.

Yes, lawful exclusions are about disciplinary and behaviour management. It is you that needs to read the guidance more clearly. To quote:

"It would also be unlawful to exclude a pupil simply because they have SEN or a disability that the school feels it is unable to meet, or for a reason such as, academic attainment/ability; or the failure of a pupil to meet specific conditions before they are reinstated, such as to attend a reintegration meeting."

Telling a pupil to stay away for a non-disciplinary reason is an unlawful exclusion.

So is asking a child with chicken pox to stay home also an illegal exclusion?

No, you are amazed that my interpretation of the actual words used in the guidance isn't the same as yours. What on earth do you imagine an unlawful exclusion (as described in the guidance) is, if it is not an exclusion?

A non-valid reason, which therefore renders this an unlawful exclusion.