Six-year-old schoolboy suspended for having Mini Cheddars in his lunchbox

[northernladyuk]

Plus the constant rule breaking and the fact the parents made it clear they will still refuse to comply, and the abuse towards staff and so on and so on.....

Where would we be if you got thrown out on your ear every time you were caught with a couple of sausage in your box?

[DirtyDog]

You obviously don't have the first clue about education.

An academy is a state school.

You are thinking of a 'maintained school', which this isn't, it is still however 100% a 'state' school'.

I thought academies had a different legal approach to exclusions than state schools. One of the first results I got in Google was a link to this Telegraph article, which says

Academies are independent state schools given complete freedom from local authorities to control their own admissions and exclusions

Obviously I should have checked further.

[DirtyDog]

Plus the constant rule breaking and the fact the parents made it clear they will still refuse to comply, and the abuse towards staff and so on and so on.....

A decision to exclude a pupil permanently should only be taken:
• in response to a serious breach, or persistent breaches, of the school's behaviour policy; and
• where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school.

Since that applies in this case, it's pretty clear why the child was expelled. Whether they have the right to exclude the younger child or not is a different question.

[dude69]

Since that applies in this case, it's pretty clear why the child was expelled. Whether they have the right to exclude the younger child or not is a different question.

How does it apply?

[DirtyDog]

How does it apply?

There were persistent breaches of the behaviour policy.

Allowing the pupil to remain at the school would (in the opinion of the head teacher and the governing body) cause serious harm to the education or welfare of the pupil (or others at the school).

[DirtyDog]

You came back after a THREE YEAR absence just to debate this?

There's dedication to the cause

[dude69]

There were persistent breaches of the behaviour policy.

Doesn't sound like it.

The school has and is required to publish its behaviour policy, which is here:

http://www.colnbrookprimary.com/bp.pdf

Nothing in the statement suggests he has breached it.

Allowing the pupil to remain at the school would (in the opinion of the head teacher and the governing body) cause serious harm to the education or welfare of the pupil (or others at the school).

Well that specifically excludes the actions of the parents, and again there doesn't appear to be evidence that that's true.

[dude69]

You came back after a THREE YEAR absence just to debate this?

There's dedication to the cause

well not really. google juice.

[DirtyDog]

Doesn't sound like it.

The school has and is required to publish its behaviour policy, which is here:

http://www.colnbrookprimary.com/bp.pdf

Nothing in the statement suggests he has breached it.

Well that specifically excludes the actions of the parents, and again there doesn't appear to be evidence that that's true.

The school has said there were persistent rule breaches. If there weren't, then it's dead easy for the parents to appeal and get the pupils reinstated. Then they can go to the press and show how they were vindicated.

I suspect that there is more to the case than either of the two Daily Mail articles has reported.

[dude69]

The school has said there were persistent rule breaches. If there weren't, then it's dead easy for the parents to appeal and get the pupils reinstated. Then they can go to the press and show how they were vindicated.

I suspect that there is more to the case than either of the two Daily Mail articles has reported.

I wouldn't assume that. They excluded him for violating their healthy eating policy, but that wasn't his behaviour, it was his parents.

And it went from suspension to expulsion in only a couple of days.

If you look at exclusion of kids this age, they are violently attacking other kids and teachers:

'My FIVE-year-old son was expelled because teachers want an easy life' claims mother | UK | News | Daily Express
The head who expelled Harry Reid says the five-year-old is the naughtiest boy she has ever taught. His mum Debbie insists he is a victim. So who is right? | Mail Online
Five-year-old girl expelled from school for 'attacking teachers' | Mail Online
Six-year-old expelled after 'reign of terror' | Education | theguardian.com

And if you read into the detail, these exclusions take months and follow interventions, meetings with educational psychologists, and all the while learning is being disrupted.

The Head here is inexperienced and probably thinks he can do what he likes - if you look at the timeline, there's really no other explanation, because there just hasn't been enough time elapsed from 'four day exclusion for eating biscuits' to 'permanent exclusion' to justify any other conclusion.