Don't know what to think...

[fiorelli]

As some of you may (or may not) know, Louis has been excluded from school until the end of term. (main stream school, that cannot cope with his special needs)

 

After some pushing from the headteacher, the LEA decided he could go to respite education part-time in September. Now, both school, and myself were under the impression that this respite was the only education he was going to be getting - but Oh, No - we found out that he has to go to school FULL TIME, and to this respite place a couple of sessions a week, and that it wouldn't be permanent.

 

A couple of days ago, the headteacher came to me, and said that under the advice of the ed. pshyc, in September, Louis would be able to go to school full time, but that he would need to be educated seperately from everyone else. When I was first told this, I though 'not a problem, he is going to get his one-to-one', and left it at that.

 

Today however, I have just had a phonecall from the respite unit who have said that Louis is to go to them for 4 sessions a week (each session lasting 1 1/2 hours) for 6 weeks. and that there is only going to be 1 other child in with Louis.

 

They also mentioned that the headteacher wasn't sure about the seperate education because of the legalities of it. This has sent alarm bells ringing, and I am not at all sure about what the hell is going on.

 

On one hand, I am happy for him to be educated seperately from the rest of the school/class because it means he gets the one-to-one. But on the other hand I am not because, he will be socially excluded from the rest of the class except at playtime (I have been told to pick him up at lunch-times), he will not be able to take part in class projects, he will not be able to even attempt doing any sort of team work. He will not have any continuity of care (the headteacher is not sure who will teach him - it will more than likely be anyone who has a few minutes to spare), He will not be able to try and build up any form of friendship with the children in his new class....

 

Oh, and this unit he needs to go to I either have to drive him there, or get on two busses, OR They will put on a taxi (which I have asked them to do) but the best bit.......They don't want to give him an escort - they asked me if I wanted one (something about they may not have the budget/might not be allowed one) - Of Course I ###### want an escort for my SIX YEAR OLD SON - I am not having him getting in any old ###### taxi without anyone with him!!!!!!! Certainly not in this day and age!!!

 

 

[Suze]

I don,t like the sound of any of that either............he,s only 6.!I don,t know any of the legalities (hopefully someone who does will post) but you,ve a right to be concerned !

[phasmid]

A lunch time exclusion, because that is what he is having by you taking him home at lunchtimes, is covered by the same rules as any other exclusion. Mrs Phasmid is the expert on this. I'll get her to have a look at your post when she gets up. As for joint/split educational provision, it is NOT that unusual. We did it for Phas Jr so he did not have to do PE with his class. We reintegrated him back into it over time and now he is a full participant.

[CarerQuie]

I would contact IPSEA for advice.Educating your son separately to the extent that the School are suggesting is not the same thing as 1-1;it is rather like an internal exclusion-he will not be mixing with ANYONE,therefore isolating him even further.

 

If the LEA want your son to attend the unit,then they should be able to arrange transport and an escort for him.xx

[phasmid]

Mrs Phasmid chairs discipline appeals panels for our County Council. The following is taken from the law that she has to use when dealing with appeals.

 

First of all lunchtime exclusions, the law states the following:

 

30.1: Pupils  whose behaviour at lunchtime is disruptive may be excluded from school premises for the duration of the lunchtime period. A lunchtime exclusion is a 'fixed period' exclusion (deemed to be the equivalant of one half of the school day) and should be treated as such and parents have the same rights to be given ionformation and to make representations. A lunchtime exclusion for an indefinite period, like any other idefinite exclusion, would not be lawful. Arrangements should be made for pupils who are entitled to reeive free school meals to reeive their entitlement. Which may mean for example, providing a packed lunch.

 

30.2: The secretary of state does not expect lunctime exclusion to be used for a prolonged period. In the long run another stratergy for dealing with the problem should be worked out.

 

20:2: If the headteacher is satisfied that on the balance of probobilities that the pupil has committed a discplinary offence and the pupil is being removed from the school site for that reason formal exclusion is the only legal method of removal. Informal or unoffical exclusions are illegal regardless of whether they are done with the agreement of parents or carers.

 

Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on exclusion from schools and pupil referal units. (Oct 2004) Ref: DfES/ 0354/2004

 

Therefore Mrs Phasmid says that by asking you to take him out a tlunchtime the school are actually imposing an illegal exclusion. They have to either put in a proper lunchtime exclusion as under chapter 31 or they swallow it. You do not agree to it, they have to make alternative provision. Even if you agree to take him home this action is still illegal!

 

Please also note that the governing body are required to review all 'fixed term exclusions' which would result in the pupil being excluded for more than 5 school days (ie: 10 half day sessions), but not more than fifteen school days in any ONE term. Only where the parent has expressed a wish to make representation. The governors MUST review all fixed term exclusions that mean a pupils has been excluded for a total of more than fiftenn school days in any one term. The school can only apply 44 days of fixed term exclusion in any one year. Once they get to the 45th day, regardless of the schools wishes or not, the exclusion then become permanant. The 45 days applies to the pupil - not the school (They carry forward on a rolling basis).

 

Individual fixed period exclusions should be for the shortest time necessary bearing in mind that exclusions of more than a day or two make it more difficult for the pupil to return back to the school. OFSTED based research suggests that 1-3 days exclusions is often long enough to secure the benefits of exclusion without there being adverse educational consequence. Exclusions may not be given for an unspecified period of time, OR, extended - for example until such time as a meeting can be arranged  as this amounts to an indefinite exclusion for which no legal arrnagements exsist.

 

The above is paraphrased from the same source.

 

 

Now as for the transport arrangements you need to ask the LEA for a copy of the SEN SPECIFIC transport policy. They HAVE to have one (their is DfES guidance on this that we used to great effect a year ago, I can't find it off-hand, but it is out there). That will give you all the information you need for the transport arrangements they will have to put into place. I know they cover escorts in this document so the LEA document should also cover this.

 

 

The headteacher is talking BS, huge smelly piles of it, about joint provision. It happens all the time. It is quite normal and the rules should be easily available to them. They are taking the pee! Where I work we have had at least two, possibly three pupils, who, to my CERTAIN knowledge have been jointly educated between us and the neighbouring special school. This is a common occurence and the issues of insurance of the pupils etc have long since been sorted. As have the issues regarding who has overall control of the provision provided.

 

I know all the above takes some un-picking. If you need clarification about anything then PM me.

 

HTH

 

(apologies for any spelling mistooks, this took blooming ages to type!)

[smallworld]

I was asked to take my son home at lunchtimes ('for his safety') for an indefinite period until we got lunchtime provision as part of his statement.

I thought this was probably unlawful and didn't agree with it. Fortunately his revised statement came through in time for the start of full-time school so it wasn't an issue.

As for being taught seperately, that would have been a no-no. Where's the 'inclusion' in that ?