OK, I'm on the warpath again.
For the Governor's Hearing:
I am not submitting any evidence to the panel, nor am I necessarily contesting my son' s exclusion.
Unfortunately I have had experience of Governor's Hearings before and I know that it is exceptionally unlikely that the decision will be overturned.
At my son's previous school despite a wealth of evidence that the school had put no measures into place to prevent an exclusion, had contacted no outside agencies, did not understand how to manage their SEN budget and had not called an annual review for 4 years, the Governors still upheld his exclusion. This exclusion was later overturned by an Independent Appeal Panel Hearing, called by myself with a Solicitor in attendence.
I am not suggesting that this has been our experience at SCHOOL. However, the willingness to be an inclusive school is, I believe, a world away for the reality of inclusion.
SCHOOL had many meetings with me to discuss strategies etc. There was an excellent reintegration programme from the Pupil Referral Unit and he was assigned a TA. This certainly shows a willingness and I have always appreciated that. However, at the Annual Review meeting HEADTEACHER did state that they had been 'lulled into a false sense of security' by SON'S relative good behaviour in his first few months of school and had therefore taken the pressure off and let some things slide. If I had realised this I would most definately advised against letting anything slide at all as I know that my son's behaviour is not consistent and there are good times and bad. I believe this lack of a safetly net caused his behaviour to worsen.
When I was informed that things were sliding, I called in the PRU myself and organised for his reintegration teacher to attend again. I also suggested the school meet with staff from the PRU as they held the key to behavioural management and it seemed obvious that if the PRU could control him, then with the right advise, so could SCHOOL. Unfortunately he was excluded before these strategies were put into place.
There was also a high turnover of staff with one teacher behaving in an unhelpful manner, claiming that she 'pitied' me for my son's behaviour and that he was the reason she was leaving the teaching profession. My son's feeling about this was that she 'hated' him and he clearly felt insecure around her. She regularly rejected suggestions of different management strategies.
My Local Authority has recently informed me that they will not be suggesting a referral to a Special School for SON.There is in any event, only one school in the whole of London that caters for behavioural problems such as his. It is believed that SON'S behavioural disorder and consequent learning difficulties are not severe enough for Specialist Provision. He would be the child with the least problems and the highest academic achievement and so therefore such a placement is inappropriate and he would be better off in mainstream schooling.
So, if a Special school is not an option and SCHOOL truly consider that they have covered every base and yet still cannot include him, what other conclusion can I come to other than that my son has been failed yet again?
I am not excusing my son's behaviour and have not sort to avoid this issue. I have every sympathy for the children and parents at this school who have been alarmed by him but I would ask the panel to look at our case with compassion and to consider what, in our position, would they do?
Is this truly a child who cannot be educated anywhere? Or simply a child who's problems take too much time and effort to deal with?
