The council is apparently arguing that Murray is no longer of compulsory education age and his schooling 'visa' has just been allowed to expire, although he had planned to do 6th year and was therefore still on the school roll. I think this argument (and the fact that Mearns Academy may have been a parental placing request for a non-catchment school) is a red herring and the school/LA still have to go through the formal procedures to exclude him (which can be a minefield). The way this has been handled cetainly engages UNCRC/ECHR rights and the much lauded but entirely risible GIRFEC policy, both of which allegedly protect young people up to 18 (and sometimes beyond) from discrimination.
There is statutory guidance on exclusions, revised since this version but the core elements are the same:
"Exclusion From Schools In Scotland: Guidance to Education Authorities Authorities Circular 8/03
Section 2: Legislative position on exclusion
Power to exclude
The power to exclude a pupil from a school and the circumstances under which a pupil may be excluded are set out in Regulation 4 of the Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975, as amended [SI 1975/1135: the relevant amending Regulations are the Schools General (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982/56) and the Schools General (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982/1735)].
The power to exclude - and therefore legal responsibility for exclusion - rests with the education authority. It is, however, open to an education authority to devolve the power to exclude to senior management level within a school.
Regulation 4 states that an education authority shall not exclude a pupil from school unless the authority:
"are of the opinion that the parent of the pupil refuses or fails to comply, or to allow the pupil to comply, with the rules, regulations, or disciplinary requirements of the school"; or
"consider that in all the circumstances to allow the pupil to continue attendance at the school would be likely to be seriously detrimental to order and discipline in the school or the educational well-being of the pupils there."
Education authorities, when deciding whether exclusion is necessary, must have regard to the particular facts and circumstances surrounding individual incidents and/or pupils.
Exclusion from school of a pupil other than in conformity with the terms of the Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975 has no statutory backing. Failure to comply with the Regulations in such circumstances may render the authority open to legal challenge by the parent/s, or the pupil (where the pupil is a young person or is a child with legal capacity in terms of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991) or to action by Scottish Ministers under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended.
School exclusions must also operate within the duties imposed by anti-discrimination, human rights and other relevant legislation. Therefore, education authorities and schools should keep fully aware of developments."
IMO the actions of both school and LA (as reported) have been disproportionate and manifestly unfair, amounting to discrimination on the basis of holding one or more protected characteristics. I am aware that there are 'comparator' rule-breaking pupils in Aberdeenshire Council schools (some of whom have committed criminal assaults) who have not received such draconian sanctions, so Murray has undoubtedly been treated less favourably in having what was a justifiable temporary exclusion commuted to exclusion for life.
I'd urge Murray and his parents to take legal advice, appeal the exclusion (if only to have it erased from his school record, which will follow him with possibly dire consequences), and look at a section 70 complaint against the council for (a) facilitating the indoctrination of children; (b) persecuting whistleblower pupils who have no equal protection under the law for making public interest disclosures in relation to schools and authorities whose policies are breaching the the Equality Act by using 'guidance' that has been disavowed by the Scottish Government; and (c) condoning schools' use of social media to promote one protected characteristic above others in contravention of its public sector equality duty.
An added dimension in Scotland is that the teacher involved is a guidance teacher who doubles as Murray's 'named person' and will have been recording 'risks' on his pupil record based on his own and the authority's determination of wellbeing (which may have been shared across 'services'). Given the teacher's tenuous grasp of biology, it doesn't bode well...
The Supreme Court ruled this unfettered data collection/sharing unlawful in 2016, but it is still happening in practice (due to premature implementation of the illegal snooping scheme) and the human rights impact of such pupil (and family) profiling (to facilitate 'early intervention', i.e. non-consensual interference with Convention rights below the legal threshold) is the subject of a petition currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament.