Better to be off sick or excluded?

[Elfoutthewindow]

DC has been sent home from school for a week and a half because they can't cope, due to sen and health issues.

In terms of getting provision in place from the LA, am I better asking for it to be an exclusion, or marked as illness?

As in they've gone every day and School have sent them home?

School sent them home as not able to cope.

But in terms of getting help/section 19 by the LA, which is going to get us help?

What sort of provision are you hoping for?
Is there an EHCP in place?

Are there learning difficulties and emotional difficulties too?

If you’re hoping for a different provision, such as a special school, you’ll need an EHCP if you haven’t got one. If you want a different mainstream school, you need to see if there are spaces in the year group in any schools in your area.

No EHCP yet. Ultimately, DC will be attending special school. They can't cope in mainstream.

In terms of getting section 19 provision, is it better to be excluded, or off sick?

We asked for section 19 provision following a period of school refusal/couldn’t mentally cope (15 days in total had been missed). Our child was still on roll at their mainstream, but attended a PRU through section 19 on a respite placement. It was a godsend. Try to keep your child on roll because the LA still has responsibility for their education that way.

Was the PRU ok? The local authority have made out it's a hellhole? (And it's miles and miles away!) Thank you

am I better asking for it to be an exclusion, or marked as illness?

If DC has been formally suspended (and DC can only be suspended for disciplinary reasons, not because the school can’t cope/meet DC’s needs) you don’t get to choose what it is marked as. It must be marked as the appropriate code for the suspension - which depends on if alternative provision is being made. For suspensions (rather than permanent exclusions), unless by school you mean PRU, it is the governing body with responsibility for providing sixth day provision, not the LA.

If DC has been sent home but has not been formally suspended, it is an unlawful informal exclusion and DC can attend school if you want them to. There are no rules about what informal exclusion should be coded as because they shouldn’t be happening at all. Although many schools try to get away with it, schools must not informally exclude and parents shouldn’t allow them to. Not only is it unlawful, it is important suspensions are formal because it provides evidence of unmet needs (important when going through the EHCNA process), forces the school to follow due process, limits the number of days the school can suspend for, allows you to challenge any suspension and, for some suspensions, means a suitable, full-time education must be arranged.

If DC can’t attend because of their SN/health that is a different and separate matter to a suspension. Illness should be marked as I. For longer term absence the LA has a duty to ensure CSA DC receives a suitable full-time education. This should begin as soon as it becomes clear 15 days will be missed. The days don’t need to have already been missed or consecutive.

So DC has been formally suspended, after I asked for this, as otherwise it was an illegal exclusion - I thought this would make things happen. This was for being unable to cope in school.

However, now it's being converted to illness for the next few days.

My understanding of reading is that if excluded, then the school are responsible for full time education, but if ill, it's the LA. So actually it's better to be down as ill?

We are going through ehcpna, but that takes weeks. Which is best for getting help now?

So actually it's better to be down as ill?

No, it is better to be whatever is true. You can’t choose to code the absence as illness if it is a suspension.

If DS has been formally suspended, it must be recorded as a suspension. Anything else is unlawful. Being suspended means the school has a duty to provide a suitable, full-time education from day 6, but they should take reasonable steps to provide education before then. Formal suspensions will provide evidence of unmet needs and means the number of days they can suspend for across the year is limited.

If DS cannot attend because of illness, it must be recorded as illness and the LA has a duty to provide provision. This should begin as soon as it becomes clear 15 days will be missed.

He's been suspended because he is disabled, and school and he cannot cope. It's not a discipline issue, it's that he's disabled.

I don't disagree with him being out of this setting.

DC can only lawfully be suspended for disciplinary reasons, not because the school can’t cope/meet DC’s needs. The school needs to follow due process. Not make their own rules up.

They wanted to just send him home. I was the one that said "hang on, isn't that exclusion?" Because I thought it would get things moving. But then the school are responsible for education after day six.

Which is why I was wondering if it would be better being illness, as that shifts responsibility to the LA, who can make things happen?

As it is, he's getting a mixture of both exclusion and illness.

What should it be recorded as if a disabled child is in the wrong setting to meet their needs and needs to be at home, and everyone agrees the setting can't meet their needs?

You don’t get to choose what the school record the absence as. It doesn’t work like that. DS has either been suspended or he hasn’t. One is not ‘better’ than the other. You can’t game the system and choose whatever you think is better.

If DS is suspended, it must be recorded as such and the school has a duty to provide sixth day provision and take reasonable steps to provide education before then.

If DS hasn’t been formally suspended he can attend school if you want him to. If he can’t attend full time because of his MH it should be recorded as illness and the LA has a duty under s19 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure he receives a suitable, full-time education once it becomes clear 15 days will be missed.

Except I do get to choose, effectively. It is working like that. Which is why I'm asking which is more effective for getting a better setting.

If the school is allowing you to choose they are acting unlawfully. DS has either been suspended or not. Neither is ‘better’ than the other. Both result in alternative provision. Both result in evidence of unmet needs. Whatever is true must be done. Not following the correct process is unlawful and the courts, who will ultimately decide any disagreement, will see right through any unlawfulness or attempting to game the system.

I'm not going to disagree with the school, I like the school. We're not gaming, my child is in the wrong setting for his needs. That's not the school's fault, nor my child's. In terms of section 19 provision, they both count the same?

No, they aren’t they same. As I have explained, if DS is suspended the duty to provide sixth day provision lies with the governing body. And they should take reasonable steps to provide education before then. If DS can’t attend school because of illness the LA has a duty under s19 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure DS receives a suitable full time education. This should begin once it becomes clear 15 days will be missed.

The school is trying to game the system. First by trying to informally exclude. Then by changing the suspension to illness. And by giving you the choice of what the absence is coded as.

Ah, possibly. But really I just want to get the best for my child. I'm pragmatic. I think ill will prompt the LA more, by the sounds of it.

I think we were lucky - ours was absolutely amazing. Very good staff and resources. Maybe have a look at one near to you (if you have one) so you can make an informed choice?