Child unlawfully excluded

[Chihuahu]

My son has been unlawfully excluded for over a year. They put him on a part time timetable doing mornings only as the school said he couldn't cope and because of the other children. My son has an EHCP and he has got a place at a specialist school and starts in September. I have formally complained to school and council. The school have applied for extra funding and are trying to resolve this. My eldest son also attends this school and is doing well. However I am so angry and upset about this and I feel my son has hugely been let down. He has missed out on so much education. How would others feel and what would others do? Just feels so unfair

How you act depends on whether you think DS can attend school full time.

If you do thing DS is able to, stop allowing the school to get away with illegally excluding DS. Email the school and LA’s Director of children’s services complaining. Inform them part time timetables like DS has been placed on are unlawful and they are unlawfully excluding DS, and from now on he will be attending full time. Don’t pick him up early unless given formal exclusion paperwork. Even if they do formally exclude DS there is a process for them to follow, they will be held accountable, you can challenge it, after so long the LA have to provide alternative education and it gives you evidence they aren’t meeting DS’s needs.

Tell them if DS continues to be unlawfully excluded you will be left with no option but to begin Judicial Review proceedings against the LA, as it is them with ultimate responsibility for ensuring DS receives a full time education and the provision specified and quantified in section F. Usually the threat of JR works but if it doesn’t and DS continues to be illegally excluded contact SOSSEN for help with a pre-action letter. Remind the school their actions may amount to Disability Discrimination.

However, if you don’t think DS can cope full time complain to the LA. They should be making alternative arrangements under s.19, the Education Act and also ensuring any provision specified and quantified in section F is provided under s.42 CAFA 2014. Inform them if they refuse or don’t make arrangements within a reasonable timeframe you will be forced to begin Judicial Review proceedings.

If he is excluded for his own safety or the safety of others what do you expect the school to do? They are trying to get funds for his support but they can't magic it up.

If you insist that he goes in then they will probably move to legally exclude him. To keep him safe and the other children.

The local authority should at least provide some home tuition for him.

If he is excluded for his own safety or the safety of others what do you expect the school to do?

Not act unlawfully!

The school may decide to formally FTE but they have to follow procedure and OP would then be able to formally challenge each exclusion. The school won’t be able to do it so that DS can only attend part time for the rest of the year either as schools can only give FTEs for a maximum of 45 days per academic year.

@Imitatingdory

If he is excluded for his own safety or the safety of others what do you expect the school to do?

Not act unlawfully!

The school may decide to formally FTE but they have to follow procedure and OP would then be able to formally challenge each exclusion. The school won’t be able to do it so that DS can only attend part time for the rest of the year either as schools can only give FTEs for a maximum of 45 days per academic year.

And what happens if he hurts himself or other children?

What if he's unhappy and cries the whole time?

A class teacher does not have the time to deal with this, there are 30+ other children requiring her attention. -Illegal or not the best thing is to not have the child there. But make provision for education at home while waiting for funding for a 1 to 1.

Then the school need to go via the correct, lawful channels. Not discriminate against a pupil for over a year. Otherwise they leave themselves open to a Disability Discrimination case where cries of 30 other pupils won't wash and the LA open to JR. As I posted it is a different scenario if the OP feels DS isn't able to attend full time despite everything being done to support him, but too often schools illegally exclude because it is the easier option for the school rather in the child's best interests. This is the SN board, posters post here to receive support and advice not to receive discriminatory replies. Perhaps you should look up MN's 'this is my child' campaign and look at IPSEA and SOSSEN's websites.

OP has not said her child displays VCB.

Funding isn't the OP's concern. Her child already has an EHCP, if the school needed more funding to meet the provision in the EHCP they should have pressurised the LA long before a year since it is the LA with ultimate responsibility for ensuring the provision in the EHCP is provided. 1:1 is likely already in the EHCP given it is usually tried before a move to SS. If they felt the EHCP needed updating an early review should have been called long before now.

In the last ten years of my teaching career I worked in a school for children with special needs. Your attempt to patronise me fell on deaf ears. I know exactly what the problems are. Insisting on the letter of the law doesn't help anyone in the long term.

I have seen children and teachers struggle in mainstream and the effect on other children in the class. We don't know how much pressure the school has been putting on to get funding. If the school cannot meet the child's needs then it can't meet his needs. No matter how much they wish they could.

In the real world the school will exclude the child permanently if the funding isn't forthcoming.

My post wasn’t intended to patronise but to call out discriminatory practices. It is appalling a professional working in the system thinks nothing of discriminating against a pupil with SEN and thinks it is OK for a school to illegally exclude a child for over a year. The way the school have gone about things is wrong.

The school may not be able to meet a child’s needs. In which case they should follow the correct procedure rather than act unlawfully for over a year. Sadly, many schools illegally exclude because it is more convenient for the school rather than it being in pupil’s best interest. As I said, funding is not the OP’s concern.

The law is there to protect the best interests of the child, the child’s needs are always at the fore. Following the law is not optional. No matter how much schools and LAs would like to believe it is.

Px requires the school to follow the correct procedure, which at the moment they are not doing. If they don’t it is likely to be overturned.

Of course it's appalling.

But it's what happens when there is no money for SEN going into schools.

You say that following the law isn't optional. In practice that is exactly what happens. That's what I was saying. You can say it's illegal loud and long but it is still happening in schools all over the UK.

Schools cannot cope. That's the reality and local authorities try their best not to fund them.

In an ideal world what you describe is what should happen. In the real world today it isn't and hundreds of children are in the same position.

I haven't said it's right but I'm being honest about what's happening. My teacher friends tell me. It is dreadful. But if people vote in the party that constantly cuts education then it's what happens.

Of course it's appalling.



But it's what happens when there is no money for SEN going into schools.

A lack of funding does not account for the attitudes of professionals thinking it is OK to discriminate against disabled pupils. Funding doesn’t account for all schools illegally excluding, it doesn’t prevent procedure and laws being followed. You posted ”Illegal or not the best thing is to not have the child there” that is not OK. Neither is ”Insisting on the letter of the law doesn't help anyone in the long term” as the law has the child’s best interests front and centre.



You say that following the law isn't optional. In practice that is exactly what happens. That's what I was saying. You can say it's illegal loud and long but it is still happening in schools all over the UK.

Just because it is happening doesn’t mean it is acceptable and should go unchallenged. Parents can successfully challenge schools and LAs not following the law, and they enforce their child’s rights, via Judicial Review and Disability Discrimination proceedings if necessary. Parents should be encouraged and supported to do this. It should not be brushed off as ‘it’s what happens’ or ‘there’s just not enough funding’. Parents do not have to accept unlawful practices from schools and LAs, especially illegal exclusions.


Schools cannot cope. That's the reality and local authorities try their best not to fund them.

I will say again, funding is not the OP’s concern.

You are right to feel angry and upset. Your child has been let down by the system. The SEN system is in crisis. The large part of that crisis is due to funding from central government, but there are also issues around attitude and not applying the law the law correctly.

What i would do next would depend very much on what I thought my child needed to prepare them for their special school place. So if I thought my son could manage full days with the right support I would push very hard (judicial review) to get that support in place for the summer term. If i thought in reality he might not cope well and risked permanent exclusion , id focus of having really well supported mornings at school and see if there are some things he could do in the afternoons (eg there are things like equine therapy that LAs will pay for if pushed hard enough). The problem with a permanent exclusion is the LA can fulfill their obligation with just a few hours 1:1 tutoring a week, and then its can be very hard to transition back to school, however if your child is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, then the LA tutor for might be the best thing to keep them mentally able to start their new school well.

You posted ”Illegal or not the best thing is to not have the child there” that is not OK.

I did. And it's true. Don't pretend it isn't in many cases. That doesn't make it right.

Some children struggle very much in school and need extra support to remain there. If there is no support available then it isn't right to subject a distressed child to being somewhere he/she doesn't feel safe. Why would you think it is?

It isn't discrimination to not want a child with special needs to be caused distress.

If a child is violent and attacking other children and staff then it is unsafe for that child to remain in school without support. Not that I'm saying this is the case with OP's child but it is common.

What is your practical solution when you acknowledge that the law is being ignored?

Nowhere have I said it's acceptable, yet you seem to imply I have.

I did. And it's true. Don't pretend it isn't in many cases. That doesn't make it right.

It isn’t true in many cases. It is never in the child’s best interest to not follow the law. You only have to look at the threads on MNSN and even some on the main boards to see there are many DC unlawfully excluded when it isn’t in the child’s best interests, but is done for the convenience of the school &/or LA.



Some children struggle very much in school and need extra support to remain there. If there is no support available then it isn't right to subject a distressed child to being somewhere he/she doesn't feel safe. Why would you think it is?

I haven’t said it is right for a distressed child to be in school. In fact my first post catered for what to do if the OP felt DS couldn’t attend full time. But nowhere does OP say her child is distressed. And it does not excuse illegal exclusions, as I said in my first post, in that case the LA should be providing alternative provision and OP can enforce that right. However, ‘no support available’ is often a line schools and LAs use when what they mean is it isn’t convenient or it’s expensive and they don’t want to when the pupil could cope if given the correct SEN provision.

It isn't discrimination to not want a child with special needs to be caused distress.

It is discrimination to illegally exclude pupils. It is discrimination not provide the child with a full time education, which is not the same thing as full time school. OP does not say she believes her child is distressed and cannot cope with full time school. Sadly schools do illegally exclude when the child would benefit from attending full time at school. Nevertheless, my first post did cater for if the OP feels her DS cannot attend full time. Where it would also be discrimination, this time by the LA, in not providing the equivalent of a full time education, which DS is entitled to.


If a child is violent and attacking other children and staff then it is unsafe for that child to remain in school without support. Not that I'm saying this is the case with OP's child but it is common.

As I said previously, then the school need to follow procedure, not illegally exclude. There is no excuse for illegal exclusions regardless of the child’s needs. If a child is displaying VCB to that extent the school should follow procedure, not go off-piste by illegally excluding.



What is your practical solution when you acknowledge that the law is being ignored?

I have posted my practical solutions for enforcing OP DS’s rights in my previous posts, especially my first post, whether that is enforcing DS’s right to attend school full time or if she doesn’t believe DS can attend full time. 



Nowhere have I said it's acceptable, yet you seem to imply I have.

That’s because your posts are coming across as though you think it is acceptable.

That’s because your posts are coming across as though you think it is acceptable.

Except I've said several times that it isn't.

Your posts do come across as though you think it is acceptable.

Your first 3 posts make no mention of it being unacceptable. Instead they say ”what do you expect the school to do?” ”Illegal or not the best thing is to not have the child there.” and ”Insisting on the letter of the law doesn't help anyone in the long term.”

Only after these 3 posts when I posted it was ”appalling a professional working in the system thinks nothing of discriminating against a pupil with SEN and thinks it is OK for a school to illegally exclude a child for over a year” do you change tune slightly but still say ”Illegal or not the best thing is to not have the child there” is ”true” when acting unlawfully is never the best thing to do for the child.

Your posts do come across as though you think it is acceptable.

Even the ones where I say it's unacceptable.? Right.

I've said it's unacceptable yet you still persist in pretending I think it is. Why would you do that?

acting unlawfully is never the best thing to do for the child.

Nonsense. I can think of several scenarios, in child protection, when it would be the very best thing to do. You seem to live in a very structured black and white world with no nuances at all. Very sad.

I don't believe that unhappy children should be forced to remain in school if it causes them further distress. Why you think it's ok is beyond me.

I don’t think ImitatingDory is saying that kids should stay in school if it distresses them. What they are saying is that the school shouldn’t just be telling the kids’ parents to pick the kid up early. At the very least they need to be filling in the paperwork to say they’re excluding the kid - because that’s evidence the parents can use to get help.

Even the ones where I say it's unacceptable.? Right.

Yes, because the rest of the posts continue in the same vein as your first 3 posts. I am not pretending anything.


Nonsense. I can think of several scenarios, in child protection, when it would be the very best thing to do.

We are discussing education law, where no, acting unlawfully is never in the child’s best interest. A child’s best interest drives the law, so no it is not “very sad” that I believe schools and LAs should never be acting unlawfully. I am not the only one on MN to believe that. I think the education experts on MN such as @prh47bridge and @PatriciaHolm would agree the child’s best interests are at the forefront of the law and the law should always be followed rather than schools acting unlawfully by illegally excluding DC, education solicitors would think the same too.


I don't believe that unhappy children should be forced to remain in school if it causes them further distress. Why you think it's ok is beyond me.

Read my posts! I haven’t post that, quite the opposite if you read. As I have already posted when you accused me of wanting a distressed child to attend previously, my posts cater for if the child is unable to attend, rather than if they are being prevented from attending by an illegal exclusion, and provision how to secure provision under s.19 the Education Act 1996 and s.42 CAFA 2014.

orinocosfavoritecake that is exactly it. If the child can cope with attending they should not be illegally excluded for the LA or school’s convenience. I am not saying they should never be excluded but correct, lawful procedure should be followed. But, as I said in my first post and subsequent replies if the child cannot attend the LA should be providing alternative arrangements. The two situations are different, one an illegal exclusion and one medical absence.

Sadly, many DC are illegally excluded when they could cope in school with the right support and the illegal exclusion should be challenged.

I agree that an illegal exclusion is always the wrong approach. Lack of funding does not justify acting illegally. Apart from anything else, if the OP decided to take legal action over this, it would be a straightforward win and the damages the school would have to pay would be far more than it would have cost to do it properly in the first place.

If it were me, I would not have allowed this to go on so long. I would have taken legal action against the school and the LA to, at a minimum, force them to pay for private tuition to make up for the time that he has missed in school. I would also be asking why he isn't being admitted to the special school immediately. Why wait until September.

My daughter was today excluded after one hour in the school, the school told me she needs support and they need. funding, until they don’t get funding she must stay at home. i would like to complaint but si don’t know how.

Sounds likely to be an illegal exclusion. The school will have a complaints policy which should be on its website. That will tell you how to complain. Do so and use the words "illegal exclusion".

Look at IPSEA website they have lots of valuable information and model letters you can use for your formal letter of complaint. Can you get SENDIAS involved, they are normally helpful. I would also complain to your local authority if it is not resolved as are legally required to provide full time education. How old is your child? After the age of 5 they are legally entitled to a full time education.

my son is only 4, the senco said that he can’t be in the school because he needs support and it is not money to do that. they only we allowed him if I stay with him on the setting. I don’t have DBS

Chilena2022 You will get more replies if you start your own thread about your DD/DS.

I second informing the school they are illegally excluding DC and DC will be attending full time unless you are given formal exclusion paperwork. Also, email the Director of Children’s Services at the LA informing them. In many cases, complaining via the complaints process will prevent you going down the Judicial Review route, so although you want to communicate (in writing or followed up in writing so you have a paper trail should you need it) with the school and LA and come to a resolution you probably don’t want to go down the formal complaints procedure at this point in time.

Does DC have an EHCP? If not you should apply - IPSEA have a model letter you can use on their website.

Be careful with SENDIASS, some are good, but too many repeat the LA’s unlawful policies. IPSEA and SOSSEN are better.

In many cases, complaining via the complaints process will prevent you going down the Judicial Review route

No, it won't. That is the reverse of the truth. The courts expect you to have exhausted all other avenues before going for legal action.