School Permanent Exclusion

[Guest]

A boy has been permanently excluded from his school based on the civil standard of proof that he came out from a cubicle with 2 other boys and because the headteacher found weed on the floor, he blamed all 3 of consuming a drug and in possession of it and suspended all 3 based on probability and past history of their records and not on fact as in witnessed them smoking or in possession. Is there anyway that this allegation can be challenged at Governors meeting that the parents have as it is in the department for education's guidance that a permanent exclusion can be done based on the civil standard of proof as in balance of probabilities. The boy insists that he did not consume any substance and just followed the other boys in and then out. The headteacher claimed to have smelt weed on them and based it also upon that. The boy does not have a history of any drug consumption but has had behavioral problems and been in a few fights and exclusions. He was previously sent to a pupil referral unit and they reported back that the boy has no issues and no incidents for the 6 weeks that he was there and that the school need to look at their own policies.

[Scot22]

He has had a number of exclusions. The school wants to permanently exclude him.
Three boys together in a toilet is, I hope, unusual in the school.
Perhaps, it would be better for him to see if a change of school would be better.
Think about offering to voluntarily leave. Then no permanent exclusion would be recorded for him or the school.
Co-operation might achieve a better outcome.

[islandgirl]

It is possible to appeal to the LEA - I have been involved in hearings with the head, the LEA and governors appealing exclusion. My advice is to look at the school's policies and there will be details of what to do if you do not agree with the exclusion and where you can appeal. These are on the school website (or should be)

[Scot22]

I understand you answered the question and I went around it. However do you think a voluntary move could be a good option ? I don't feel the context is right for him to stay. Possibly further challenges ?

[Huxie]

The OP is now shown as a ‘Guest’ so I think they’ve cancelled their registration and left the site.

[islandgirl]

That's a shame
Hi Scott22 yes it may well have been preferable for the child to find a new school but if they had been to a unit in the past other schools may have refused a managed transfer..

[Scot22]

Good point. Schools really need to have the opportunity to implement the right values providing for children.
Each year I spent in education I became more idealistic about children. I became more cynical about how society structures schooling, not always the same as education.
Another deep topic so I'd better stop rambling.

[ULA]

Hi yes the OP has cancelled their registration.

Thanks to everyone who provided advice on this thread.

[Shaz120]

Hi All,

Thanks for the advice. I made this post but realised it was for consumer issues so closed account but then as you've given advice I assume it is also for other legal matters.

The boy was sent to a pupil referral unit for 3 weeks resulting from behaviour issues and from a number of exclusions and they found that nothing was wrong with him, that he had a positive stay and they recommended that he go back to main stream school as the issues were within the school. The school did not agree with their report and carried on sanctioning the boy. The parents had requested a managed move to another school but the head did not support this and instead sent the boy back to the pupil referral unit once again for another 6 weeks. The report came back positive once again. The head then sent the boy to a 3rd pupil referral unit after a minor incident that escalated into anger from the boy and they second opinioned that the boy had no issues.

Whilst I agree schools should implement the right values providing for children, in this case I strongly believe that this school did not know how to handle the behavioral issues this boy has had in the past, did not know how to deal with his anger bursts that resulted from staff constantly targeting the boy on radar and that their staff are not trained on behavioural issues within this school and so often wrongly sanction pupils.

The local authority haven't supported much and have also refused a main stream school placement most likely because the head hasn't recommended this in his report or due to his record. However the bad record has been populated over 2 years and made to seem like the boy had issues. The boy has now been sent to a fourth pupil referral unit and will likely stay until year 11 or as and when his report is populated about this behaviourat the unit.

[Scot22]

Thanks for coming back. As someone who has spent decades in education, including 15'years as a head teacher I am incensed by what you have told us. I am working in the belief your account is accurate which I'm sure it is.
Not sure if still applied, but a permanent exclusion can only be decided by governing body.
Am I right in assuming is an Academy school? Otherwise first port of call is the Local.Authority. Have you approached them ? I will make longer post but, at the moment, too angry !!!

[Shaz120]

The school is local authority maintained, last Ofsted was in 2012 and outstanding. I guess they are overdue an inspection. Local authority has been approached and they have decided against a main stream school and have said that the boy needs to prove himself that he is good in terms of attendance, punctuality and behaviour for 2 terms in the pupil referral unit before he can be considered back into main stream and that might be difficult as he is in year 10 and schools wont accept him beyond the end of year 10 so he might have a slight chance.

The boys parents have been invited to a governing hearing and a decision to be made to either reverse or side with the heads decision. This is still pending.

[Scot22]

Long overdue ! Is it still the same head ? You seem to be doing everything possible.
What is happening to the other 2 boys ? Can you work together ?
I suspect it is the officers of the Authority making these rulings. Can you contact a councillor on the Education committee to discuss the situation.

Assuming he completed two terms satisfactorily, would it be sensible to put him back in the same situation ?
Can the boy's parents afford legal representation ? I know a silly question in current climate.

[Shaz120]

The head is new, started in 2021. We aren't sure what the other 2 boys situation is other than they are also being sent to PRU. I think the councilor option would be a good route to take but the advice from the Local authority exclusion's department is that a pupil can only be considered for main stream school after 2 successful terms in a PRU when permanently suspended from a main stream school. I need to check if this is a DFE or Local authority rule or guidance.

The school has also referred the boy to social services for being groomed based on this incident without informing the parents. The parents only found out when social worker phoned the father.

I don't think the boy can go back to this school as he feels he will be on radar again and staff are just baiting him for a reason to heavily sanction him once again but a fresh start elsewhere could've helped beforehand if the head made the right decision in a managed transfer as opposed to a directed placement in multiple PRUs.

The parents probably wont go that far if the governors hearing doesn't go well and would just settle with the PRU and the hope of a main stream school for their son after 2 terms depending on the report.

Its a very difficult situation but I believe this school were planning for sometime to find a reason for this permanent suspension based on previous sanctions for this boy.

[Scot22]

Is education otherwise a possibility ? .The boy has been let down by the rigidity of some parts of state education.
I'm a big supporter of home education. There is a lot of help available.
School appears to be a frustrating waste of time for quite a few youngsters.

[islandgirl]

As I said I have sat on panels to decide if a headteachers decision to permanently exclude was correct. The problem is that, whilst the pupil appears to behave well in the units he attends, when in school he has been disruptive, angry, short-tempered etc. (or this is what I see from the posts, forgive me if I am wrong). Good behaviour at the unit does not necessarily equate to good behaviour in school. Are you sure the managed transfer was not refused by the other schools - they have a right to do this. I also find the idea of staff baiting the pupil to create bad behaviour a little strange. They may be demanding the same level of behaviour as other pupils have to demonstrate and this pupil may find that difficult to achieve for whatever reason. There are obviously 2 sides to everything. At the governors meeting they will be presented with a file of all the incidents which have occured - this is often extremely persuasive. The parents should attend and make a firm reasoned case for his non- exclusion - prepared in full in advance. It is of course a very difficult situation.