Appealing against Permanent Exclusion

[McTemp]

Would love to pick some brains out there! A friend of mine has a daughter in Year 8 who has just been permanently excluded, and this exclusion has been upheld by the Governing body. Parents want to appeal this decision.

The reason given for the exclusion was "persistent distruptive behaviour", and they outlined a number of examples of this.

While parent doesn't dispute most of these took place, it is clear that this is a very high achieving school, and her daughter struggles academically (School Action Plus for dyslexia), and I think the school are keen to get rid of the child, as her grades affect their results.

The child in question is also deaf in one ear, and parents would like to appeal because they don't believe their daughters disabilities have been taken into account. The decision letter states:

"staff received training how to deal with deafness on an annual basis, but accepted that perhaps not all teachers were aware of X's hearing loss."

Parents believe that the child's misbehaviour in class arose because of her disability as it was likely that she couldn?t hear instructions given to her and was placed in the back of the class when she should have been at the front.

Has anyone got advice about what the exclusion appeal process is like, and what sort of things parents might need to prove?

No PSP was put in place as far as I'm aware, but parents might have overlooked this, or not realised the significance of it. I've requested a copy of it from the school, and will see what they come back with. Parents are very keen for girl to be reinstated in school, but I think this is because the school is on their doorstep, and the PRU the girl has temporarily been placed in is miles away, as is the next closest school. Attendance has never been a problem with the girl before - and parents believe that her attendance will drop massively if she suddenly faces a commute to school, and they are probably right to be honest. Although I see what you mean about the school will try and hound her out, I have no doubt of this either, and would probably believe a fresh start would be best, if only the nearest school wasn't so far.

Is there a traveller education service in your LEA?

Also, as she was on SAP, ask to see a copy of her IEP.

Apologies - yes, there is traveller service. They were not keen (and completely clueless) when I rang them. They said their main purpose was to help parents fill out school forms, and encourage parents to send their children to school, and that they don't get involved in exclusions. They directed me to the admissions department, who directed me back to the school. Dead end I think.

Have also asked for a copy of IEP, and I have heard that this particular school has by far the highest exclusion rate of any school in the LEA, so have asked for the number of exclusions in the last few years also, to compare data with other schools and try and prove the school are too harsh in excluding a child?

That's rubbish, sorry.

Do PM admissions for advice, she is dynamite.

I am a governor at a school and was also one at another school in the past. I have sat on quite a few permanent exclusion panels and the governors involved have always taken the responsibility to exclude very seriously - it is a child's future. In my experience of persistent disruptive behaviour the behaviour has usually got to a point where there is no other option and all other strategies haven't worked. At the schools I have been a governor (one excellent, one not so) the staff have usually worked very hard to keep the child in school, they have to do this.

A permanent exclusion isn't something that is ever done lightly. I am assuming that the young girl has had exclusions in the past and each and every one will mean the parents have been informed in writing, work will be sent home to be completed by the student and a meeting will be held at the end of the exclusion to discuss the way forward - parents are invited and expected to attend. They will also have been invited to attend the permanent hearing and are invited to have someone to represent them if so desired. Again, in my experience the schools attempt to work very closely with the parents. There is a procedure to be followed which is usually outlined by the LEA (probably nationwide) and the school's own policy etc. I find permanent hearings very sad but there is usually a very good reason why it is happening. I have two big manuals about all this sitting looking at me.

Meant to add - sometimes a permanent exclusion can be the only way that the student can get the help they need as all else hasn't worked.

I'll PM admissions, thats for your help tethers. (Whats rubbish, btw. The travellers service refusing to help, or the idea of asking for exclusion data to compare with other schools? If its a silly thing to do - I won't do it! I have written my letter but not sent it yet!!)

Harlot - the girl has only ever had one exclusion for 2days before. The parents didn't attend the re-intergration meeting that was held, because they didn't know they were invited (parents can't read. the school sent it to them in a letter, and they can't read the letter). I just find it shocking that the school can exclude without ever meeting with the parents first? Surely when the girl told the school her parents cant read and she has to read the letters for them, they should have visited the house, or rang, or something? I really feel the school has been negligent when dealing with this child, and excluded her because she is a traveller and they want to make her 'someone elses problem'.

No, no, the traveller education service is rubbish! Not your idea!

ok, thanks.

also, I meant thanks for your help, not "thats". sorry.

McTemp - one two day exclusion isn't enough in my experience. The exclusion hearings that I have been part of usually show persistent problems often going back to junior school and before. I am surprised the school can exclude on what you have said actually, unless the student had done something such as bringing a weapon or drugs into school or really hurt someone. Am surprised they have got away with it. The LEA should have details about exclusions at different schools - we have had two this year, one I sat on and it was to get help for the student involved as the LEA weren't doing what they should have and the student was not getting the help they needed - a severely disturbed young thing. It was very sad to hear about. I don't think it is a silly thing to ask for the data. Schools in my area have been criticised for too many permanent exclusions and the rate has gone down enormously. There are all sorts of other strategies to try first.

I have never sat on an appeals committee but I hope the family are going to have some sort of representation as it sounds like they won't be able to cope.

From what I can gather (and you have to remember that most of my information is coming from the parents, who really believe their daughter can do no wrong, whereas I'm not quite so gullible naive), their daugter excelled at primary school. I read one of her primary reports, and it really was quite glowing (suprisingly!) and parents reckon the primary school supported her adequately and she flourished, whereas current school does not.

Child was excluded for truanting a lesson and throwing stones over a neighbouring fence into somones garden (no-one in garden, no-one hurt), which although is bad behaviour, certainly doesn't fall into the; arson, theft, weapon and drugs categories that exclusions usually do, and I think school could have dealt with it in another way rather than exclusion, which is what I'd like to argue, ideally.

Also (I have the memory of a sieve!) the school initially rang the parents and said it would be a 5day fixed exclusion. They knew nothing about the permanent exclusion until the letter arrived 5 days later saying it would be a permanent exclusion (from the 5th day - not a permanent exclusion from the day of incident, if you see what I mean?).

I'm almost positive the school needs a very good reason (e.g. new evidence has come to light) in order to change from a fixed to a permanent exclusion, whereas I think they gave her a fixed exclusion and they thought "oh, lets just change it to a permanent and get rid of her", which I'm sure they can't do.

I think the only sieve-like thing here is the school's case, TBH. They have left themselves wide open for challenges.

Good luck.

Well if the schools I work in (not governor at) excluded all the kids who truant lessons there would be very few left! I really don't understand why they thought it appropriate to permanently exclude at all. Not sure that would go down well at an appeal - they haven't investigated all avenues open to them have they. A five day exclusion would be for something very serious (not truanting a lesson) but, and I could be wrong, I think you can be given a five day exclusion whilst evidence is gathered for a permanent hearing but the school would need to inform about that. However I could be wrong there.

Out of curiosity I have looked up exclusions in 'A Guide to the Law for School Governors' . If the parents are appealing the appeal must be heard 'no later than the 15th school day after the day on which his or her appeal was lodged'.

The manual also says 'Exclusion should only be used in response to serious breaches of a school's discipline policy and only after a range of alternative strategies to resolve the pupil's disciplinary problems have been tried and proven ro have failed; and where allowing the pupil to remain in school would be seriously detrimental to the education and welfare of other pupils and staff, or of the pupil himself or herself.'

Be interested to know what was in the school's disciplinary policy! You can ask to see that or it may be on the school's website.

Bahviour policy is on the schools website - it says one of the reasons for exclusion can be "Repeated incidents at a lower level where there has been a failure to respond to support or other sanctions"
The 'repeated incidents' the school makes reference to on the decision letter is "defiance and abuse of staff, failure to follow instructions and attempted damage to neighbouring property". I'm sure this is all probably true (failure to follow instructions and defiance of staff can easily be atributed to hearing loss) - but I also want to argue that the 'support and other sanctions' they have put in place is grossly insufficient to then exclude. The governing body have already met and upheld the appeal, so the parents are appealing to an independant panel - they lodged the appeal yesterday, so it will be heard shortly I suppose.

But if the student has only had one fixed term exclusion (for what) and then is excluded for truanting and throwing stones that really doesn't seem enough. What is the defiance and abuse of staff? I have loads of stuff here I didn't realise I had regarding exclusions and from what I have read it doesn't look like the school have done enough going on what you have said. The headteacher should have rung the parents as well as sending a letter regarding both exclusions. Do you know what other strategies were used for behaviour (if any). Had the student been on report (report card filled in each day by teachers about behaviour etc.), internal exclusions, assessment by Ed psych or use of nurture groups, counselling etc.

I am feeling rather annoyed about this - is there prejudice against travelling families - even static ones?

The previous 2day fixed term exclusion was for "physical assault on pupil". She punched a boy in the face (outside of school). She said the boy had been hassling her for ages and followed her home (he lived in the opposite direction) and tried to lift her skirt up, so she punched him, and broke his nose. She got a 2day fixed term exclusion, he got nothing, despite the fact he couldn't explain why he was walking home in the opposite direction, and that her sister went into the school and showed the school texts the girl has received from the boy, him texting to say "meet me, i want to see your body" and things like that. The school said you can't appeal against a fixed term exclusion, but that it would only be for two days, and then nothing more was said about it.

The school doesn't go into detail what they mean by "defiance and abuse of staff" but I did see on the girls fb page that someone had written a while back along the lines of "omg did you call Mr X a retard?" so i imagine its that sort of thing. It needs consequences and discipline, obviously, but not perm.exclusion IMO.

No assesment by Ed Psych or anything, the school said they "wanted" to refer but parents were reluctant. Parents deny ever speaking to the school about this at all, and said they would have been very Pro it, if it had of ever been suggested to them. No idea about other strategies the school may have put in place (report card etc), I've asked for her school file and will probably post again when I see what comes out of that.

A school cant permantely exclude a pupil unless it is a very serious offence. Thats why they have fixed term exculsions. If a pupil has several fixed term exclusions amounting to 45 days or more they can then be permantely excluded.

I am completely deaf in one ear, and always have been. It's not a significant disability. My parents never paid any attention to it, nor was I ever excused any piece of bad behaviour because of it. I feel sorry for other deaf-in-one-ear adults I have met who have been brought up to think they are labouring under a handicap, and have under achieved because of it.

Butterbur I havn't said it an excuse for her bad behaviour. I have said that the fact the school were informed about it (repeatedly) and yet made no adjustments to her education is negligent. A child who has both significant learning needs, deafness, and is a traveller obviously needs extra support in school than your average child, yet this girl was not given it. She gets sent out of lessons for talking in class etc, yet if she is made to sit at the back (despite the school knowing she should sit at the front) then no wonder she doesn't pay attention and gets distracted!

Regardless of the girl's actions, there is little doubt in my mind that the school was wrong to exclude her. I just hope the appeals panel feels the same way.

Sadly, I think the fact this is a traveller family has unfairly influenced the course of this whole thing - firstly because the parents themselves are not highly educated in the sense society normally considers education, and it is highly likely they themselves had issues with or anxieties about school as an institution.

Added to which, research shows that traveller children, even settled, are far more likely to be excluded from school than most other groups of children for identical incidences. Do you know which traveller group they belong to? Since many groups actually have a legal ethnic identity and discrimination against this child on the grounds of her ethnicity would be covered by the Race Relations Act (or similar).

I think the lack of communication between the school and parents, and the lack of effort on the part of the school to provide parents with information in a form which is accessible to them, is really key here. I am fairly sure this could be demonstrated to be a major contributory factor to the failure to tackle the child's behaviour. These people might be able to help this angle: www.gypsy-traveller.org/about-fft/advice-information-unit/

It also doesn't sound at all as though the school has followed any sort of sensible policy or procedure here.

That said - I wonder if a new start in a different school would be best - if the child has been excluded from the local school and would need to travel to access another school, would the LEA not have to provide transport?

McTemp, are you going to be presenting the appeal for the parents? There is a whole procedure that needs to be followed for the original permanent exclusion and it sounds like this hasn't been followed. There are all sorts of options that can be followed. I am assuming there is no statement or anything in place for the girl, is she on the SN register at the school?

However as Oakmaiden has said if the relationship with the school is so bad then she may be better off elsewhere when the dust has settled.

oak has said what I wanted to but couldn't word as eloquently. It's but there are stereotypes surrounding traveller families (even settled ones) and it is an offence to let these cloud judgement and influence any decisions.

You need some advice and fast.
From you various posts I would say this exclusion is not justified. Firstly because the school seems to have taken some very large jumps to PE, very quickly. Secondly they have clearly not exhausted all means of helping this pupil and the fact that the LA was involved in putting more support in just confirms this. There is the issue of this being a Traveller, they should have been receiving a degree of help and support and actually there are precious few traveller girls who go to High School. I also have some concern about the way that the 5 day exclusion became a permanent exclusion. This can be done but there is a specified way and just sending a letter is not one of them!
Please contact ACE or the local parent partnership or pm me because this sounds like one of those very occaisonal cases where the school are actually doing this for all the wrong reasons. Though I have to say that the parents of this pupil are being remarkably placid about it, most Traveller parents would simply have withdrawn their daughter when she hit the other pupil because they are very protective of their daughters.