01:00
I haven’t the faintest idea of the name of the Excluded Swansea schoolboy. It is not right that I should know it. Nor should anyone else because the name was anonymised in court proceedings.
00:45
But, for the purposes of this story, I shall call this bright, 14-year-old pupil, Tom. Tom was coming to the end of his first year of GCSE studies at an institution which describes itself as a happy and successful school. Up to then there had been no material concerns about his behaviour.
01:15
One day, during a break, it is said that Tom called out the word “slut” to a female teacher. The teacher complained to a colleague who at once spoke to Tom. Tom owned up and apologised in front of the teacher.
01:30
He was then taken to the school’s exclusion unit and asked to write down what had happened. Tom wrote that he saw the teacher and said “slut” although didn’t realise how bad it was, admitted it to her and apologised.
01:45
The teacher reported that she was extremely upset and shocked as this was the second occasion “this week” and added that she hoped that this matter would be dealt with immediately and there would be an appropriate sanction in place given the nature of the comment.
02:00
Afterwards the teacher took time off work, was on medication and contemplated whether she could continue in the teaching profession. This was the trigger for proportionality to go out of the window. Of course, Tom’s behaviour was inappropriate. Of course, it could not be passed over. It merited punishment.
02:30
The headteacher met Tom the same day and, again, Tom apologised. Later that day the head wrote to Tom and his parents and excluded the boy from school for five days pending what he described as “a full investigation of this incident”. The next day the head met with Tom and his parents. Again, the boy said he was sorry and the family offered to speak with the teacher, but the head replied that the teacher was not in a fit state to meet the family at that stage.
03:00
The parents requested the headteacher to consider keeping Tom in school until the end of term. A few days later the headteacher wrote again to Tom and his parents, this time excluding Tom from school permanently.
03:20
The boy, too, suffered anxiety and stress as a result of his exclusion. The parents wrote to the Governing Body saying how sorry they were for the incident and for the hardship and anxiety it had caused the teacher. They tendered their own apology and set out the disciplinary action they had taken in respect of their son. They pointed out that the behaviour was out of character and, rightly, that permanent exclusion would affect Tom and his education in a way which was disproportionate to this one incident. They said they would support any school action considered appropriate for Tom’s rehabilitation.
04:00
Tom sent a handwritten letter to the teacher concerned, to the headmaster and the Governing Body, and repeated what a judge later described as a fulsome apology. The Governing Body met and upheld the Headteacher’s decision. Tom appealed to the Independent Panel of Swansea Council. After a hearing, they too upheld the decision to exclude Tom from school permanently.
04:25
Thus it was that the molehill assumed the proportions of a mountain and the case came before a Judge sitting in the Administrative Court at Cardiff. By this time Tom was now attending another school in Swansea and did not want to be reinstated at his original school, but neither did he want the stigma of permanent exclusion to affect his future and asked for the Panel’s decision quashed.
05:00
The judge’s powers were limited. This was not a review where the judge could substitute his own decision for that of the headteacher and the Independent Panel if he thought the decision was wrong. It was important therefore to examine the Guidance which said that headteachers, independent panels and others must have regard to the Guidance when making decisions on exclusions. It went on to say that a decision to exclude a learner should be taken only (i) in response to serious breaches of the school’s behaviour policy, and (ii) if allowing the learner to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the learner or others in the school.
05:45
Additionally, the guidance stated that exclusion was a final step in a process following a wide range of strategies which had been tried without success. It was an acknowledgement that the school had exhausted all available strategies with the learner and should normally be used as a last resort.
06:15
What the panel failed to do in Tom’s case was to assess the level of seriousness for itself. It erroneously took the view that it was a matter for the School to judge whether there should be exclusion.
06:25
Tom’s case was further complicated by the Headteacher’s unfortunate analogy before the Panel. Referring to Tom’s apology he gave the extreme illustration that killing someone would not prevent them from murdering again. Tom’s father told the Panel that this was the third time that the Head had compared his son to a murderer, having already repeated it to the Governor’s, and he considered it demonstrated the Head’s attitude.
07:00
The appeal judge found the Headteacher’s remarks to be neither appropriate nor relevant. It was unsurprising that the parents should see this as a comparison with their son’s behaviour, and it demonstrated the Head’s approach to Tom’s apology. The panel failed to have regard to the Guidance appropriately and its decision was quashed.
07:20
Tom’s case reflects poorly on the school, its governors and the local authority. It does not demonstrate a caring environment; it exhibits an underlying tension between staff and pupils. Something was clearly going on at the school because the teacher said there had been a previous incident, although the finger was not pointed at Tom for that. There is at least a whiff of suspicion that blame was being heaped upon Tom for other misbehaviour.
08:00
In the youth courts of this country, strong emphasis is placed on the requirement to rehabilitate and train young offenders to be responsible members of society. It is recognised that children, particularly boys, do not mature fully until they are in their twenties.
08:20
If that is the emphasis in the criminal justice system, then how much more important is it that every conceivable step is taken in the school system to support and rehabilitate pupils who misbehave rather than scarring their future prospects with the label of permanently excluded from school?
08:45
It is hard to believe that Tom would not have learned his lesson with the initial 5 day exclusion, and it would have been a demonstration that such behaviour would not be tolerated by the school. That would have been a just and proportionate penalty.
09:05
Those in charge of the school now need to reflect and take to heart the lessons of this unfortunate episode.
