Permanent Exclusion with Statement of Educational Needs

[Hawthorn1000]

My 8 year old son has just been excluded due to behaviour issues. The statement he has was for this poor behaviour and he was on maximum support from the local authority. The exclusion decision was made by the head and the lad was given a 3.5 day exclusion, followed without warning by a permanent exclusion without him having returned to school. Just wondered if anyone had experience of this as it seems to be just a little knee jerk and will do nothing for the boy who has attachment and anger issues dating back from before he was adopted. We have always been very support of the school and feel let down that they have just dropped him without even an attempt at a planned move.

Ok the first thing that you need to understand is that if the school has got its act together then it will say in their behaviour policy that any complaint about the head teacher's response to a PE has to be dealt with through the governor appeal panel and independent review panel route not the school complaint procedure. Only if it is something that is not pertinent to the exclusion can it be raised as a complaint.
The governor appeal panel is so that they can decide whether the correct process was carried out, it was fair and it was reasonable to decide on a PE. So you should be putting in writing your concerns about the lack of progress to support the SEN of the child, that there were clearly still lots of avenues open to change the behaviour issues of the pupil whilst in school and that there is a directive in the exclusion regs of 2012 that pupils that are SEN, adopted or LAC should only be excluded in extreme circumstances. Be as brief as possible but make the points you need to make. At the appeal you will be given your opportunity to ask questions of the head teacher and number one of those has got to be why did you not hold an SEN review as per the exclusion regs (paragraph 24) and why did you not consider a managed move. You will also have the ability to make your statement and to me you need to concentrate on the school have failed to use all appropriate strategies to improve behaviour and why did the head teacher make a sudden decision to move from a 3 day fixed term exclusion to PE. What was the catalyst for that decision?
The GB will decide immediately after having heard all that the head teacher and you have said. Do not expect to wait for an answer, they should always send you home and then confirm the decision in writing. If you do not get the correct outcome then you have 15 school days to register for an independent review panel and that will be held within the next 15 school days. You do need to understand that the government made a massively bad decision in 2012 so that the independent review panel cannot reverse the PE, they can only quash the GB appeal panel decision and ask for them to think again based on the outcome of the independent review panel. They could (but at considerable risk to the school) just continue to say the PE stands.
The other thing to say is at the independent review panel you are entitled to ask for an SEN expert to be present and you should do that. I suspect that they would have plenty to say on whether the school have done their best by the pupil or not. You need to make that request at the same time as for the independent review panel.

Megatherium
Apologies, in the stress of all the activity going on I overlooked your post which is a pity as it seems very useful and I am reading it now.
Thanks

Thanks PoppyStellar and admission

Right, that detail of how it works is very useful.

Is it normal practice to put your points in writing so that the Governors can familiarise themselves with the 'case for the prosecution' and is it normal for the 'defence' to share their case prior to the appeal?

On the point of what the head might say I have noticed from reading his letter and comparing that with the information on official sites that he has pretty much copied and pasted everything from those and had stuck with a very generic approach.

The first fixed period exclusion for 3.5 days stated that 'he has been excluded because he physically assaulted another pupil (namely hitting him in the face)'. There were no other riders to this exclusion such as that this was subject to further investigation or whatever. That was it as far as we were concerned and we supported this as it stood. I would also make the point, while not making light of the incident, that the other child involved was not injured to the point that even the most limited medical attention was needed. It was a playground incident.

The second letter relating the permanent exclusion advised that due to 'persistent and serious breaches of the school's behaviour policy
means that allowing him to remain in school would seriously harm the education and welfare of pupils and staff within the school (including THE LAD himself)'

I find this odd and a little difficult to argue against because the reason that the lad has a SEN is because he has a tendency to poor behaviour which is supposed to be controlled by the school using their SEN resources. The school behaviour policy makes no reference to whether a child has a SEN or any other disability (and perhaps it shouldn't) but it does seem to ignore the fact that there is an inherent potential for some form of persistent upset. On the second part I am not sure how you define 'seriously harm the education and welfare of pupils and staff' - sounds like it would be very easy for me to question this and for a relatively vague answer to be given.

Your second paragraph admission sounds very valuable and I need to bear it in mind when I start getting my bits together for the day.

Final point - is there any requirement for SEN officer from the LA or the educational psychologist to attend if requested or is up to them if they wish to come?

The school should send you , and the governors who will be on the panel, a pack of paperwork setting out the case for exclusion 5 school days before the meeting. This should contain copies of the PE letter and any previous FTE letters. It should also include a statement from the HT as to why he has excluded your son, and any supporting evidence such as behaviour records, notes of previous meetings with parents, previous support plans and evidence of what impact any support school has provided has had. If you don't get this paperwork school are not fulfilling their legal obligations. I don't know if this by itself would be enough to convince an independent review panel that there was a 'procedural flaw' ( one of the reasons a PE can be 'quashed' and the governors can be directed to reconsider their decision).

I would take your any evidence you want to supply along with you, and perhaps get there early and ask school to photocopy copies for governors. I think the meeting can be adjourned for a short while (say half an hour) to allow for governors to read additional evidence if there is a lot you would like them read through before they consider the exclusion. However, you might find it works equally well to have your paper evidence in front of you whilst you make your case verbally.

Re the SEN expert and Ed Psych, there is no obligation for them to attend this hearing but you are entitled to ask them, and if they do come, it would be sensible for the governors to listen to their perspective specifically in relation to the PE.

My first question would be whether any other child has hit another child in the face in the playground and whether that would result in a PE? I can't imagine that being the case in most schools.

The letters appear to be standard letters. 3.5 days for hitting another pupil is perfectly reasonable, though clearly the length of it was designed around the half term holiday.
The second letter is also standard wording in terms of persistent and serious breaches of the behaviour policy as is seriously harm the education and welfare of pupils and staff within the school. They are just culled straight out of the exclusion guidance and schools will always use them because if they start to use their own wording they risk being caught in terms of not being legal etc. Do not bother to much about the wording the two appeals are about the school proving the decision they took was the correct one.
The next question for me is whether the lad had previous fixed term exclusion or not. If not then 3.5 days would be a perfectly reasonable fixed term exclusion for a fight in the playground but then converting it into a permanent exclusion seems quite harsh without there being far more previous similar behaviour or something about the latest incident that elevates it to much more than a fight in the playground. Also was playtime a particular problem time for the lad? If so had the school provided an adult to keep an eye on him during that time when issues could arise. If not, again they are have not done everything possible.
Has the lad been asked for his version of events that led up to the fight? If not that is another angle as that would certainly be best practice and again is in the exclusion guidance to do "if at all possible".
You have to submit written evidence because it means that the GB and the independent review panel do have to consider each and every bit that you have put forward. If it is verbal on the day then things might get overlooked. You need to submit what you feel are the point of your case and you will get the school's case in good time for your to read and understand.

Interesting point lougle as the school world has constant playground 'events'

The background of our lad is that he has a short temper linked to his background pre adoption - nobody knows why and even at a young age he had got a phrase into his head from somewhere that he had 'anger issues'.

That said there is not a constant history of daily, weekly or monthly events but if a child winds him up then it can end up in him lashing out which has been something that the SEN arrangements have included in their work and one that we as parents have always had as a priority. I have had once or twice to apologise to other parents for outbursts of this nature by the lad and they have accepted that it was not a 'serious assault' but part of a playground altercation that perhaps got a bit more rough than needed but that their child had not been entirely innocent. None of this is an attempt at condoning behaviour where he has hit anyone - quite the reverse, we have always supported the action the school and the SEN co-ordinator wished to take to address any action within school and unfortunately having given them this level of trust seems to have contributed to where we are now as we did not push back and ask for detailed explanations of incidents such as the one under discussion.

One other thing, from an adoptive parent point of view, I would say you need to be very explicit with the governor panel that your son is adopted. I would make them aware of the impact his early life experiences and the trauma and loss he will have experienced will have had on his behaviour and asking school why they don't appear to have taken this sufficiently (or indeed, at all) into account in their dealings with him.

The hearings can be difficult and quite emotionally charged. Go prepared. I wish you all the very best.

Sorry, X post with you.

My DGS is with us in kinship foster care. Has an EHCP but does not receive pupil premium.
Similar problems with attachment disorder, ADHD, FAS.
Since starting school at age 4 he has had a TA with him at all times including lunchtime and in the playground.
When he was younger and became distressed in the classroom the TA would take him outside to ride a bike round the playground until he calmed down.
He is now in the first year of high school. Still with a TA.
This school is much bigger and has a separate, highly staffed, playground for SEN children.
At our last meeting with SENCO DGS was asked if he wanted to stay in this small playground. He decided he would like to play in the bigger one but was given the option of returning to the smaller one if he wished.
He is also able to ask to see the SENCO at any time if he has a problem.
It really seems to me OP that you have not have the help and support we have had and which should have been available to you.
Perhaps we have been lucky but recently have moved to a different part of the UK and both LAs and schools have been equally supportive. We have never had to fight for any of this.
Due to this support DGS has progressed beyond all our expectations.
Just wanted to say this to point out what should be available to you.
I am really sorry you are going through this and hope things eventually work out for you and your son.

I was wondering, OP, what the statement expects the school to provide. Does he have TA hours allocated? How is the statement worded regarding support for him during the day?

Also be very careful not to meekly accept "new" evidence submitted by the Head that has not been disclosed to you earlier. In my previous role of LA Officer at Governor Exclusion Panels, I have seen this tactic used. It is not permissible to do this but be very careful that there are not lots of incidents flagged up at the meeting which you don't know about. Poorly trained Governors can easily be persuaded by this. I have even seen poor completion of homework added in by Heads when giving submissions on a behaviour exclusions. All documentation and incidents that are going to be raised must be made available to all parties. You can copy your submission and give it to the Clerk for circulation if you wish.

The meeting with the SEN LA sounded positive.

A question for Admission - can a child with a 'Statement' naming School A have a Managed Move to School B? I thought the Statement had to be revisited? Therefore it was not in the gift or remit of School A. When I was working we would not have expected this and the Ed Psych and others would be involved to review the statement and give advice on an appropriate school and the SEN Team would negotiate the place. Am I wildly out of date?

NotMeNoNo

Just hoping all is going well at your end - please share any progress you are making.

Some really good stuff off the people on here that know what they are talking about.

Smilingmind

It might be confirmation of my utter innocence and naivety but despite what has been going on for quite a while I still refuse to believe that there are not a lot of very good people out there trying to do the best for these children in these sort of circumstances.

That I suppose is where the frustration comes from - as a normal human being you struggle to see why someone would do the things that they do when they are in these positions of authority.

It is really reassuring to hear it working for you and the children in your family - it would be a rather hopeless world without these success stories where the system and the people in it have actually worked! Well done as I am sure that your approach to it did have some contribution to the outcome.

I do try to be positive and I called the LA that is responsible for the school that the lad went to because their letter asked me to (although in reality it was just following a process). The call which probably was expected to take 5 minutes actually took almost an hour and the message I tried to get across was that there was nothing that they can do in the process because it is statutory but by banging on about the detail of it and the obvious unfairness that has been shown that if not for my lad that they should at least look at seeing whether or not this school is doing all that is needed as part of the LA's school improvement policy. She said she would and I went away slightly pleased that although my lad has been treated poorly then perhaps there will be some review about how this was allowed to happen which may help other young people. Of course that may have just been a way to get me off the phone so I need to think how I follow that up but small progress helps morale!

I hope your family (and you ) continue to be supported by caring people in the system that care about the outcomes.

bojorojo

I am still awaiting a date from the Governing Board and any supporting paperwork. I am still unsure of the very detailed process around who does what and shares what information with whom (although my knowledge is growing with each vey helpful post from the community including one or two more detailed observations in PM's)

I have sent the head teacher a list of what I would like (not being entirely sure of what I am due) and he responded today saying they would share learning, attendance, exclusions and SEND information but refused to send details of actual incidents and who observed them and what parents expressed concerns about the behaviour of the lad. He said they will provide a copy of the exclusion report that goes to the Governors. The head teacher quoted a referral he made to the school LA about the request for parent feedback and witnesses and he advises he was advised this was not possible because of DPA. I do not know what will be in the exclusion report to the governors but I am not sure how you investigate the circumstances around individual incidents or around statements such as 'parents are complaining about the behaviour of your son' without being able to know who those people and witnesses are - is this something that a independent review would look at or event a court?

I suppose I am looking at this from a lifetime of watching television programs where there is admissible evidence and process around who has to disclose what to whom and where you get to cross examine the witnesses and other parties in court! As I said I live in a world of innocence........

That was a very long response to your question on the school potentially bringing in additional material - as I say I don't know the process around disclosure and I would appreciate any additional advice here. My gut feel is that I would be very vociferous should this happen.

On the detail around the statement I think this is actually the nub of the whole problem. The school can (and have) provided detailed spreadsheets showing what they are doing and what it costs but there is always a need for more money. The statement allows for 27.5 hours of one on one support (plus pupil premium is also paid) and at the SEN annual review meeting the SEN LA agreed further increases in financial support then and there at the meeting. I do not work in a local authority world but my understanding was that to get any more money for anything always would involve forms, discussions and delay. I nearly fell off my seat when at the meeting in October 2016 the SEN from the LA said what she did in the meeting (where the head teacher was present).

I await to hear back from the SEN LA at the start of next week but it would be interesting to hear admissions response to your query around the mobility of the Statement as clearly that is going to come around.

I think that the discussions around the statement this time will be more educated by our family but I have to say that I was absolutely and totally ignorant of what it was all about in 2013 when the first one came along. I believe that there is a big gap here, most probably for all parents, but definitely for adoptive parents like we were when this welter of information arrived. I think (naively again!) we accepted that someone somewhere within the education or post adoption system would make this happen properly. It clearly didn't!

OP, you need to be careful to understand that whilst both the governors' appeal panel and the independent review panel have the force of law behind them, that the level of proof is not what is in a court case, which is beyond reasonable doubt. In terms of an exclusion it is whether the probability is that what is alleged happened did happen. That is 51% saying that it did happen. I do not think there is any doubt that the incident in the playground happened, it is about the severity of the incident and whether the head teacher then made a proportional, rational and fair decision in deciding to PE.
The school has to provide a statement to the governors panel about the circumstances of the incident that led up to the PE. As the PE is for persistent disruptive behaviour, the school will also be required to present information on a timeline showing significant disruptive behaviour and what the school have done to try to readjust this behaviour. As such they will need to quote specific instances of poor behaviour and I would expect that these are incidents that you are aware of. If it turns out that you are not aware of these incidents, then the question you need to be asking the head teacher and the governing body panel is how if there were all these incidents the school has not involved you. If other parents have been complaining I would expect some written evidence of this (maybe with names redacted), with evidence that the school carried out investigations of the incidents and that you were aware of them. It really is a matter of waiting and seeing what is in the information pack that comes from the school around the exclusion. I do agree with BojoRojo that there is a tendency for the school to come up with all sorts of information at the hearing and you do need to stop that happening if at all possible. I have a rule of thumb and that is the greater the depth of paperwork from the school, the more likely it is that the school's case is weak, it is death by photocopy.

In terms of managed moves, I am aware that different LAs have quite different ways of handling these across England. Clearly if the statement names school A, then the expectation is that they go to that school. Around my area, any PE of a primary school child will result in discussions taking place between the LA, the current school and the parents as to whether a managed move is possible or realistic. The LA will tend to lead on this in the time period form the notice of PE till the date of the governors panel. If they believe that there is the possibility of a managed move then they will look for an appropriate school that might be prepared to accept the pupil. I have no doubt that this process is partially lead by the need for schools and the LA to report PE to the DfE, whereas managed moves are not. I always question whether a managed move is in the pupil's best interest and more importantly how the receiving school is going to be able to improve the pupil's behaviour when the previous school did not. That is where the expertise of other outside agencies such as Ed Psychs can be used to try and get the very best possible outcome. Locally any agreed managed move would be brokered such that the pupil stays on the register of the first school but attends the other school for say 6 weeks. At the end of the 6 week period the two schools and parents would decide whether the managed move should be made permanent. If that happens then the statement will be then altered to name the new school. If the managed move fails then the pupil returns to the original school, as they are still registered there, but always inevitably there is another incident and the pupil is permanently excluded. Hence the need for ensuring as far as humanly possible that any managed move is going to succeed. Such a failure is much, much worse mentally for the pupil than just having the original PE as they will always end up at another school anyway.

I entirely agree with Admission. You can ask the Clerk to send info provided by you to the Governors in advance rather than copying it on the day.

Your lad is well resourced with 27.5 hours and PP funding. If the LA agreed to more, they have been generous! The question is how they are spending the money to ensure his outcomes are improved in line with the statement. They do not appear to be spending the money in an effective way and it has led to poor behaviour escalating.

The Head has a duty to investigate the incidents which form part of his submission or they are hearsay. They can be written statements from unnamed pupils or staff or other adults. He is permitted to say how many complaints there have been but these are not usually as important as witness statements. The complainants have not actually seen the incidents.

With persistent poor behaviour it is fairly easy for the school to say it disrupts the learning and well-being of others. However as he has substantial one to one, how does this happen? You need to persuade the Governors that it is the failure of the school to meet his needs, as defined by the statement, and their inability to spend the extra resources effectively. Does his TA have suitable training and expertise for example?

It is not just the latest incident that has led to the PE, it is the cumulative effect of numerous incidents. Therefore comparing a single incident of poor behaviour by another child is not helpful. The incident leading to the PE was the final straw.

A behaviour policy sets the standard for all. This is what is expected and I do not think schools make exceptions for SEND children by having a second policy. I believe it is down to the school to help children meet the expectations by using their resources and expertise.

The SEN LA, you and your Ed Psych can come to the conclusion another school would be better. Usually their expertise would guide you. I have not seen many managed moves take place because usually the initial school will not take the pupil back and therefore you end up in limbo again. They may use a long term exclusion and then PE at the end of it so you cannot go back. My instinct is to let the LA lead and move to a suitable school just the once. They will know what is most suitable but I do think the financial package you already have is high. Usually 30 hours is the most and you are 30 mins short of this per day.

Hi Poppy Stellar

All gone quiet for a few days as I prepare for the governors appeal which has been agreed on a compromise date of 6th March.

One question is just what sort of depth are families expected to go into? I jotted down the relevant parts of the story to talk through and I have eighteen A4 pages!

Having said that, when I put it down as bullet points in the form of a report or statement it just doesn't seem to get across the story.

What works best and what is the norm (if there is such a thing)?

Regards

I've sent you a PM

Evening all, feel duty bound to give you an update after all the very fine information provided.

Appeal took place yesterday and was rejected today.

Absolutely gutted because of the emotional effort that the family put into it and the sheer amount of research that went with it, part of which was from the Mumsnet folk so thanks and nothing that you said prejudiced the outcome and, now and again,forecast it.

I spent a little time in the financial services industry where, when there was a dispute it was my job to look into it, gather the data, obtain evidence and then report. I did that here in a 28 page document as a supporting document - I actually talked through the key salient issues on the day and not the detail, unless mentioned.

So, my point is that I presented a case, following the advice I had from all the recommended sites and from here and all my experience and using the schools data which would have been accepted within seconds by the financial services world as a valid case - a world thought of badly in our society and they would have accepted that case.

This same case, considered by the board of governors was rejected. The rejection letter ignored the key arguments (highlighted on here) that the DfE guidelines had not been followed, that the behaviours had been foreseen and should have driven an earlier emergency SEN review meeting (as per the guidelines) were ignored. The data supporting the schools PE actually, following my somewhat anal 28 page analysis, said the reverse - it showed his behaviour was improving! The school ignored the ongoing therapy, the removal of his teaching assistant and on an on!

The appeal decision responses are show at the end of this post - I have not removed my son's name as I am encouraging this case to be known as I do believe that other than removing the PE from his record the school has no interest in him and has washed his hands of him. This is therefore more important than the individual case - in my view there is no more harm this school can do to him.

We live in Tameside but sadly, as adoptive parents we were not advised to avoid a split between the school authority and the authority managing the post adoption. Some may disagree, and indeed it may never be an issue if the children have no problems in school, but my advice would be not to chance it because having two authorities involved if things go wrong is a nightmare! Having sat through an appeal where a supporting authority (Tameside MBC) was giving a hard time to a Derbyshire County Council controlled school (and no one from DCC turned up for the appeal!)a hard time and for that school to shrug it off with a rejection of the appeal makes it very clear to me - potential adopters or people with children with SEN don't split the authorities. To be fair it probably doesn't work well for other kids as well!

I need to ask a question here otherwise this just becomes a lot of 'lost post appeal' moaning so can anyone help me with the following -

Is Derbyshire County Council known not to support SEN children in PE exclusions? Their efforts here have been dreadful compared to the very supportive TMBC ( and I don't work for either!)
Has anyone done the Independent review process (and is it worth the effort ) bearing in mind their limited powers?
Do you have to do the Independent review and the Tribunal for discrimination or can you move directly to the Secretary of State?
Has anyone just gone down the civil route for negligence in respect of the loss of education of the child, psychological damage, damage to the welfare of the family, loss of earnings through rearranging work commitments/stopping work to cover time when the family is covering the education (McKenzie has not been in a school since 6th February 2017). There is no desire to 'ambulance chase' here but it seems it might be a quicker way to get in front of a truly independent party that would listen to both stories. Goodness, on a really good day the case might be heard by the judge that granted the adoption and gave McKenzie a toy car as a present to help him remember the day.

The reasons for the governing body's decision are as follows.

• We feel that McKenzie’s continued attendance at the school would not be in his best interest both emotionally and educationally.

• We feel McKenzie’s presence in school is detrimental to the wellbeing of other pupils in the school.

• The school is unable to meet the complex need of McKenzie.

And that's enough - thanks everyone for listening - those that have been here where our family is know the grinding frustration of how unfair it is.

Does anyone know if Mumsnet do 'investigative journalism'? I would be keen for someone in the media to address the wider issue of what I have quickly seen as the grey area between permanent exclusions for 'normal' children and those for children with a statement. Got a contact at the Manchester Evening News but that it maybe not wide enough?

Hawthorn

I think it's pretty usual for governors to uphold appeals. I think it's worth going for the independent review process - the fact that the school cannot meet your son's needs and think his continued attendance isn't in his best interests are, quite simply, totally unlawful reasons for excluding him. If that was what they believed, they should have contacted the LA months ago to get his statement amended.

I think I read somewhere that appeals to independent review panels do have quite a high success rate despite their limited powers. Did you contact the School Exclusions Project?

It sounds like you could also usefully consider a disability discrimination appeal in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal - they have a separate power to overturn exclusion decisions.

I'm really sorry to hear this. The reasons they have given are very standard and general but show no appreciation of the complexities of your case and the significant time and energy you have committed to trying to support your son. I know it's irrelevant to the outcome but it really frustrates me when decision letters are so impersonal, just seems like an unnecessary kick in the teeth at an already stressful time.

I have no experience of SEND tribunals or their success rate, but this may be the better route to follow than IRP as independent review panel can't overturn and can only direct governors to look again if there is a procedural flaw in the process. It seems to me that your son has been disadvantaged in the exclusions process directly because of his diagnosed SEN but I say that as personal opinion rather than from any knowledgeable standpoint.

What alternative provision have you been offered and does it look like it has any potential to meet your son's needs?

Megatherium

Thanks for coming back so quickly and for your thoughts - I haven't even looked at the success rates to Independent Tribunals and I need to think about that.

To be honest what you say in your first paragraph is just the point I was making - the way that we sort out a £1000 claim for a financial product is dealt with more effectively (ie the regulator says to the bodies, if you do reject a claim then it will cost you £500 (win or lose) and if you want to carry on then good luck because if your case is not rock solid then you are losing all the way and the regulator will ask the losing party to pay compensation.

This system does not.

It says - make a decision about somebody with a disability or statement - see who complains?. No-one? Case won!

And if they do complain then what about? The DfE guidelines are lovely in meaning but in accuracy it is scary if you, as a head teacher REALLY want to exclude someone with an SEN, then why does it not state what is allowable?

The guidelines must not be fit for purpose - I have not had to time to be honest to look at the core legislation ( and there is a bit of me thinking this should have just gone to a lawyer outside of the school system for breach of common law). Are there legal examples of parents just bypassing all of the tribunals and independent reviews and just getting to the basics of who did what legally and why? I am not rich by any means but it cost me hundreds of pounds last week just to prepare (properly ) for the appeal.

I am really annoyed today but I will be happier for my son tomorrow! Just sent an invite to the Friends of the School website inviting children and parents to an informal leaving party for McKenzie (outside of school of course, the permanent exclusion stands following appeal so he is not allowed on school grounds) and we are getting a lot of responses so looks like the local cricket club! For anyone with the understanding of attachment issues then this is an obvious thing to do. It wasn't for 'the caring Charlesworth Primary School'

Hawthorn

Clearly the governor's panel are in need of further training! 2 of the 3 reasons given are not really appropriate reasons, the only one that is being no 2
•We feel McKenzie’s presence in school is detrimental to the well being of other pupils in the school.
But it should have detail of the specific reasons for coming to this decision.

As far as attendance at the governors panel meeting it is not mandatory and given the current state of LA finances and staffing, it is not a great surprise to hear that nobody from the LA attended. I do know a couple of people who undertake independent review panels in Derbyshire and I would be confident that they would take a much greater look at the background to this exclusion than seems to have happened with the governing body panel. I would definitely go to IRP, you have nothing to lose and you can then go to Tribunal after that if necessary. LAs tend to be quite risk averse when it comes to going to Tribunals as they recognise that in most cases they are on a hiding to nothing. It is also very expensive and you would need to find a solicitor with good experience of education exclusions who will take up the case for nothing.

Thanks Admission

Typing out the IRP now!

McK is now set to go to the PRU in Tameside and a local school is looking at his paperwork (arranged via the TMBC inclusion officer) but I am not sure the school would be able to cope but will talk to the head.

Is there anyway DCC can back out of this now or must it now go through the IRP? I only ask because I had been having correspondence with a councillor on their education committee and I told him the outcome and, cheekily perhaps, asked him if DCC really wanted to spend a lot of man hours and money on a lost cause ! I await to hear..............

As to legal help a parent at the school is a barrister and he seems keen to pull some favours - meeting him for a chat at the weekend.

The school can back out of this at any time but I think it is unlikely they will do so at this stage. DCC can put pressure on the school but they cannot override the governors.