All these cases have been taken from real life scenarios. The callers have agreed to have their case facts published. All callers’ details have been withheld for confidentiality purposes.
Case study 1
Facts:
A parent called the National Education Line and asked for advice in relation to her child and the secondary school her child attends.
The caller’s child wore a necklace to school and the school confiscated it saying the child may have the necklace at the end of the school term. The caller felt angry about this and feels that it is in breach of her child’s human rights, the caller felt that this is a case of theft and that the police should be involved.
Advice provided:
The caller was advised to obtain a copy of the school uniform policy, which may be available via the school website.
The advisor informed the caller that there is no specific legislation that deals with school uniform, but the Governors of the school are responsible for school uniform as a general duty under the School Standards Framework Act 1998.
The advisor explained to the caller that the school have the right to confiscate jewellery if it is within their school policy to do so.
The advisor then suggested that the caller should contact the school and ask if the necklace can be collected before the end of term.
The caller was further advised that if she felt as though the school uniform policy was unfair then they could obtain a copy of the school complaints procedure and make a formal complaint to the governing body of the school.
The caller was advised that the confiscation of the necklace was not felt to be a breach of human rights and the client was advised no to take this up with the police but to tackle the policy within the school instead.
Case Study 2
Facts:
A parent called the National Education Line and asked for advice in relation to his 8 year old son. The caller’s son returned home from school after receiving a blow to the head after being pushed over by another child in the playground. The school wrote a letter for the child to take home to give to his parents regarding the incident. The letter became lost and the caller was not happy that the school had not telephoned him about the incident. The caller wrote a letter to the head teacher of the school explaining this. The caller informed the advisor that the head teacher took offence to his letter and that the relationship between them has become strained.
Advice provided:
The advisor went through the process of how to make a formal complaint to the school, if this is what the caller wanted to do.
The advisor explained to the caller that schools have a duty under s.175 of the Education Act 2002 to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare of children in school’.
The caller was also advised that the school has a common law duty to act in loco parentis, which means to act as a reasonable parent would.
Case study 3
Facts:
A parent called the National Education Line and asked for advice in relation to her 7 year old son and a teacher at his school. The caller’s son made an allegation about a member of staff on the last day of the summer term. The caller’s son states that the member of staff deliberately kicked him when going for a football; the teacher claims it was an accident. The caller made a complaint to the head teacher, who then investigated the matter herself and concluded that the child was lying and made him apologise to the teacher in question.
The caller contacted the LEA about the issue and was annoyed to discover that the head teacher had not contacted the LEA about it.
The caller received a letter from the head teacher stating that the incident could not have happened because the teacher’s timetable meant that she could not have been in the playground at the time anyway.
Advice provided:
The caller was advised to obtain a copy of the school’s child protection policy and a copy of the schools formal complaint policy. The caller could ask the school to revise its policies if the caller feels that they are not adequate.
The caller was advised to make a complaint to the governing body about the head teacher’s failure to follow the correct procedures and to ask the governing body to investigate the matter.
The advisor explained to the caller that schools have a duty under s.175 of the Education Act 2002 to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare of children in school’.
The advisor suggested that the caller look at the DCSF guidance ‘Safeguarding Children in Education’.
The caller was also advised that because there was no witness to the incident it is unlikely that the governing body will be able to take action. Realistically all she can expect to get from the complaint is an apology from the teacher.
