Question about exclusion appeal panels - connection between members

[Artbum]

I have been asked to chair an exclusion panel which I have done a few times before. I also volunteer on admission appeals panels.

I got the papers today. The clerk messaged me to say the Head Teacher representative on the panel is concerned because my daughter used to go to HIS school. Obviously I have no connection with the school involved in the appeal.

The clerk wants me to declare this at the beginning of the appeal. Does this actually matter? Frankly I have more of a relationship with other panellists I have known for years. I have spoken to the man maybe twice. I did have cause to complain a few times though. My daughter left the school 3 years ago.

It is not whether there is any connection, it is how it might appear to the parents involved in the case if it is revealed after you have not declared an interest.
There is to me no issue, with no conflict of interest, but it is best to declare at the start of the hearing that there is tenuous connection to your colleague in that my daughter did attend his school but you have no connection with the school involved in the exclusion

Thank you for your comment, you are correct. I had just assumed that he had a problem with me personally, but perhaps I am being paranoid.

Definitely declare it. There is obviously a connection there.

I have a closer connection with panelist’s such as school governors I have known for years. Although that is invisible, that would be more likely to influence my decision than a man I barely know and who I don’t particularly like.

Not liking him is a problem. You aren't neutral and professional. Needs declaring. And why wouldn't you?

In this circumstance I would advise the Clerk that of course you will declare this but that perhaps the HT should also declare that your DD used to be a pupil at his school. Copy in the HT to the email.

Some HTs have difficulty adjusting if the 'power' they once exerted over parents shifts the other way. There is probably a reason(s) why you didn't particularly like him before and this current request is probably a good example why.

And you wouldn't be repeatedly asked to sit on and Chair on these Panels if you weren't highly professional, the problem is his (ego) not yours.

Thanks Hatels. I did tell the clerk that I was happy to declare it. I do see the point that I know him outside the panel. However this is a large city. Some panellists know each other socially but don’t have to declare that.

I just feel he has a problem with me - I also objected to his schools new admission policies a few years ago.

One of the governors of the school this exclusion appeal is for, regularly sits as a panellist for admissions appeals for his school. That is more of a relationship but doesn’t need to be declared, I assume.

He does have a problem with you :).....and is clutching at straws; but you already know how to be neutral and professional whereas he has difficulty with this. His problem.

The fact that you are talking about not looking

Hmm...accidental posting there

The fact that you are talking about a) not liking the man, b) thinking that he has a problem with you personally and c) objecting to his school's new admission policies (which you had every right to to, and may well have felt obliged to do) as if it is a personal affront, does suggest to me that there could be a concern about the impartiality of the panel. You may feel there is not, but I do think that the HT is right to expect that a simple "I'd like to declare that my DD attended X School, of which panelist Mr Y is HT until 201y." is stated.

You do need to consider if this will affect your ability to make a fair judgement, though, because you do sound like you have a problem with this man, and that makes me wonder if subconsciously you would be inclined to disagree with him on principle, which is surprisingly easy to do.

Lougle. Thank you for your comments.

In my professional life I have to make decisions on a daily basis that affect peoples’ lives and that are open to scrutiny; despite my view of them or their representatives. I believe I do so according to law and due process.

I do not think this is any different.

There are some panellists who are active politically and whose views I disagree with. This does not mean I do not listen to their comments or take them less seriously.

There are also rude and arrogant appellants and admissions representatives, when I am undertaking admissions appeals, however I believe I form my views on the facts.

I would welcome this man’s views on the school’s handling of the events leading up to the exclusion. My personal views about him and I think I have spoken to him maybe twice, do not come into it.

BTW it is a few years ago but I objected to the new admissions arrangements because they had the effect of excluding many children in a poorer area, whose families had supported the school when it was the local shithole. This was done out of sincerity and not out of some wish to disrupt or be difficult. I was one of the few that did so and I think that singled me out to him because he ran that process.

I disagree Lougle - the simple fact is that there are only a finite number of people with the experience, availability and ability to function within the constraints of Panel work. This extends beyond the sphere of education and the same faces will be seen in many different contexts.

Therefore there will always be pre-existing' relationships' and 'connections' and the OP has highlighted a few examples of these which are far stronger than 'a few years ago my dc went to the same school that another Panel member worked at'. It is rather an odd thing to require declaring given the realities of Panel 'work' (usually unpaid except for expenses only) and that is why the OP asked here (I think).

I know how these things work, as I used to do them. I'm simply saying that the OP's comments do suggest that she has a personal problem with this man. If she doesn't, great.

No I did not say that Lougle. I said I thought he had a problem with me, a lowly civil servant and former parent of his pupil, chairing a panel. He may have just been ensuring the process was water tight, I don’t know.

Lougle - I know how these things work too, although truly I have no wish to butt heads with you on this - my experience ranges beyond and includes the educational spheres. I am also the Parent of a dc with SN that has been on the receiving end of these Exclusion Panels.

The only people that I've come across that have had difficulty getting their heads round not only my involvement in Community Service prior to and since having DS, but also have difficulties with 'due process' and following the Rules explicitly are those involved in Education as their sole 'sphere'.

Correction to previous point - I've come across many from various spheres that have difficulty with due process but none that show as much 'surprise' at my involvement in such activities, because most of the people from other 'spheres' appreciated my involvement irrespective of agreeing with me or not.

Do you know what, I take it all back - ignore me. I don't know where my head was when I read this, but I read it completely wrongly. I still think it would be good to acknowledge your connection, but I think that the reality is that this HT thinks you won't be impartial because of your previous dealings over the admissions rules. If that is the case, then he should be brave enough to raise it, and get it formally dealt with. But he won't, because he knows that you will be declared impartial, and he'll look silly.

So, I think you should go along, graciously declare that your DD attended his school in the past, and then be extremely obvious about your fairness and impartiality to all parties throughout the hearing, so that he doesn't have a leg to stand on should be be thinking of complaining, and so that the parent has full confidence that you are hearing their case fairly. That way, you'll be dismissing his concern in the best way possible.