Formal Complaint and Legal Notice: FAO Governors Mrs Gill Perkin and Mr Mirek Gliniecki of South Camberley Primary Nursery and Primary
Formal
Complaint and Legal Notice:
For the Attention of school governors South Camberley, nursery, primary and regarding C’s Immediate support, in literacy, speech, language, meaningful inclusion peers and FT education in mainstream education.
Namely: the governors: Mrs
Gill Perkin and Mr Mirek Gliniecki via school email as specified on the
school website as follows:
‘The Co-Chairs of Governors are
Mrs Gill Perkin and Mr Mirek Gliniecki who can be contacted via the
school office’.
The issues
1.
To
what extent with independently verifiable evidence, has the school and the named
individuals associated with this issue, whether as employees or contractors have
complied with:
2. The ethical
and legal requirements pursuant to SEN and the relevant C(child) before and
during his attendance, since 19th April 2021 to date?
·
To be clear, related literacy teaching for
C (not to be left just playing with his red bus, FT education for C and inclusive
education and play with his peers.
·
As well as a stop to exclusion from FT
education attendance now cut at two hrs compared to his peers of around 6hrs or so.
·
A stop to repeated physical handling by
staff.
·
A stop to be locked out of the school (see
video).
·
Full time education.
· A clear written account of the incident/s around his trouser in the toilet i.e., being full down while simply doing a wee and who goes with him to the toilet.
Steps taken ensure that the educational environment for C and his family are treated with human dignity, by the school, not labelled as 'insulting' when they raise legitimate concerns or have their lived experiences tarnished or invalidated especially, when raising a genuine examination as to whether race is an arguably perceived key contributory factor.
In light of the apology on behalf of the CEO of surrey to that effect.
In effect to ensure that those raising issues on behalf of C should not be subject to responses that may be perceived to be victimisation or retaliation or stereotypes.
3. To
what extent would a white child of similar needs be treated in that
manner as documented over the months and specified in various correspondence,
formally, informally and as forwarded attached documents and below?
4.
Overall,
as an overall teachable moment and for the best interests of the child and the
wider public interest, what role does race, racial attitudes or stereotypes
both personal and structural play in C’s education or to his detriment?
Some brief
specifics
Mr Jonny Franks
5. We reject a claim, among others, in a response sent by Mr Jonny Franks of SouthCamberley primary, on or around 11th June 2021, that our strong well
founded objections to the specific, particular and focused use of Elizbeth Gunner , as a particular speech therapist, in respect of C
provided by the school, was a rejection of all speech therapists provided by
the school. Or words to that effect and interpretation.
6. And therefore, according to the response sent by Mr
Jonny Franks, the school would not be providing any more speech therapists for C. If that was what was meant as understood, this characterisation would appear to incorrect and deeply troubling.
Allowed to stand this could be arguably interpreted as a form of alleged victimisation or retaliation in contravention of the Equality act 2010, the HRA 1998 and other applicable child education acts, if true and proven.
8. Most parents would find this stance morally
troubling given that these are public officials paid by taxpayers and trusted to
ensure that all children are provided with the best support possible to ensure
that children are meaningfully included in a nurturing, welcoming educational
environment, in a mainstream education on a full-time basis. And demonstrate
that they have applied best endeavours and actively deployed ALL developmental
options over time to come to close to FT, Mainstream inclusive education as
possible.
9. To be clear our specific concerns with Elizabeth
Gunner as OPPOSED to ALL school provided speech therapists were:
10. Her
official claims that C be sent to a categorised special needs school,
11. that his
school hours remain NOT FULL TIME but 2(which we had to insist on after her was
only prescribed 30mins by Mr Jonny Franks in concert with a lady we think is
Mrs Kurzberg and the teacher,
12. Ms Gunner’s
claims of what would amount or can be perceived or interpreted to be a formal
medical diagnosis,
13. Ms Gunner’s
repeated reliance on what others told her about C as opposed to her own
contemporaneous evidence based professional conclusions based on her own
interactions with C,
14. The
inexplicable basis for the school or Ms Gunner to provide procedural and substantive
evidence that objectively leads to those conclusions.
15. The refusal
to provide the professional qualification/s that would ordinarily be publicly
available for persons working with children and /or making official
reports/decisions that could be interpreted as medical diagnosis or the
foundation for the rest of a child’s future.
a.
Time being of the essence, any further delay will
negate C communication and literacy development.
b.
Therefore, given that C continues to attend this
school daily, there has not been independently verifiable evidence of the provision
of support, in respect of literacy, speech and other areas that would allow him
to attend school on a full-time basis and propel his development.
c.
In her email of last week (week starting around 7th
June 2021), Mrs Kurzberg state words to the effect that in May 2021, it was agreed
(or words to that effect and understanding), that C would attend school between
9 and 11. Without any context or that could imply that this is open ended. We
would never agree, nor have we ever agreed to such a claim in the context it
was stated by Mrs Kurzberg. (See email) attached.
d.
The email referred to safety ( there is a general presumption that
all schools should be safe and why him in particular), a gate, but the key
sentence of concern is replicated below.
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
Kind
Regards, |
Sent around 10 June 2021.
‘Good morning Mr….
17. ‘…. Following
on from our conversation this morning I wanted to put in writing what was
discussed. …’It was agreed on the 4th May that C would attend school from
9.00-11.00’….
a.
We responded and raised specific concerns about this,
but we were ignored. Despite the sense of urgency about C’s FT education.
b.
Far more acute is the repeated blocking or wilful
refusal to open the door by members of staff for C when C arrives some minutes prior
to 9am.
c.
This has caused visible avoidable distress to C on several
occasions in front of other children and parents. He wriggles, cries and kneels
on the ground while being totally ignored by staff. (On the less distressing of
those occasions we took a video and sent it to the school). No response or
apology has been given. A copy was sent to the council, Ofsted among other
relevant bodies.
i. Repeated
formal requests most of which are part of the school’s
website and selling points so to speak.
ii. The school
website states that these are provided at school. So, the question is if these
have not been evidenced as fully triggered and applied to C over time, why
would Ms Gunner make such extremely arguably destructive recommendations in an
official report after 60 mins of what she claims to be observations?
iii. On or around 17th May 2021, Mrs
Kurzberg repeatedly stated that C is effectively stating to him that he does
not want to be here, or words understood to that effect. This emphasis on this
wording from a non-fully verbal five-year-old who had been at the centre less
than a month, and only for two hours (for three weeks), and 30minutes for the
first week of 19th April 2021, was deeply troubling. Especially,
when all the possible supportive measures and other options had not been
evidenced as put in place, to even remotely come to the extremely and pivotal
conclusion in the life of this C.
iv. When
reiterated that would be consistent would be the school, to exclusion to criminal
justice, she responded she has seen over thirty years some children who come to
school and come out worse. This was a heart-breaking revelation and was noted. Because
one of the perceptions was that C would potentially be like that if he continued
to attend south Camberley school.
C’s
Teacher
v. On several
occasions, she stated that C should only be at school for an hour or initially
thirty minutes in concert with Mrs Kurzberg and Mr Jonny Franks of South
Camberley, primary school.
vi. When asked
whether C was allowed to play with other kids especially outside, she stated
that ‘although it is playing it is still interaction’ or words to that effect. Which
would raise the question as to whether C was allowed to interact with his peers
with the expected supervision, which is crucial for his learning, language and life
skills.
vii. In a
meeting with C’s teacher and Mrs Kurzberg, on 17th May 2021, it was reiterated and understood, by
us, from both that C is generally left to play alone with his bus and there is
little interaction with him.
viii. That he
would only be engaged when he learns to settle down or words to that effect.
Which would raise any other question, as to why as the professionals, they do
not at least start engaging him through his interests?
18.
To what extent have some of these
supportive measures been provided and where is the verifiable independent
evidence to support that?
·
As well as a stop to exclusion from FT
education attendance now cut at two hrs.
·
A stop to repeated physical handling by
staff.
·
A stop to be locked out of the school (see
video).
·
Full time education.
·
A clear written account of the incident/s
around his trouser in the toilet i.e., being full down while simply doing a wee
and who goes with him to the toilet.
19.
Specialist SEND teacher
(specialising in ASD)
20.
Play Therapist
21. Internal Speech and Language Therapist
23.
Inclusion in all activities with his peers.
24.
Some
excerpts of the law and the principles associated with the issue.
25. Working Together to Safeguard Children
(2013): Statutory guidance from the Department for Education which sets out
what is expected of organisations and individuals to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children •
26. The Children Act 1989 Guidance and
Regulations Volume 2 (Care Planning Placement and Case Review) and Volume 3
(Planning Transition to Adulthood for Care Leavers): Guidance setting out the
responsibilities of local authorities towards looked after children and care
leavers •
27. Equality Act 2010: Advice for schools: non-statutory
advice from the Department for Education, produced to help schools understand
how the Equality Act affects them and how to fulfil their duties under the Act
• Reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils (2012): Technical guidance from
the Equality and Human Rights Commission
28. Supporting pupils at school with medical
conditions (2014): statutory guidance from the Department for Education
29. The Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice:
Protecting the vulnerable
Focus
on inclusive practice and removing barriers to learning: Overarching principles.
30. 1.26 As part of its commitments under
articles 7 and 24 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, the UK Government is committed to inclusive education of
disabled children and young people and the progressive removal of barriers to
learning and participation in mainstream education.
31. The Children and Families Act 2014
secures the general presumption in law of mainstream education in relation to
decisions about where children and young people with SEN should be educated and
the Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination for disabled
people.
32. 1.27 Where a child or young person has
SEN but does not have an EHC plan they must be educated in a mainstream setting
except in specific circumstances (see below).
33. 26 The School Admissions Code of Practice
requires children and young people with SEN to be treated fairly. Admissions
authorities:
•
must
consider applications from parents of children who have SEN but do not have an
EHC plan since the school’s published admissions criteria as part of normal admissions
procedures.
•
must
not refuse to admit a child who has SEN but does not have an EHC plan because
they do not feel able to cater for those needs.
•
must
not refuse to admit a child on the grounds that they do not have an EHC plan.
34. 1.28 The Equality Act 2010 prohibits
schools from discriminating against disabled children and young people in
respect of admissions for a reason related to their disability.
35. 1.29 Children and young people without an
EHC plan can be placed in special schools and special post-16 institutions only
in the following exceptional circumstances: • where they are admitted to a
special school or special post-16 institution to be assessed for an EHC plan
with their agreement (in the case of a young person) or the agreement of their
parent (in the case of a child), the local authority, the head teacher or
principal of the special school or special post-16 institution and anyone
providing advice for the assessment
•
where
they are admitted to a special school or special post-16 institution following
a change in their circumstances with their agreement (in the case of a young
person) or the agreement of their parent (in the case of a child), the local
authority and the head teacher or principal of the special school or special
post-16 institution. Where an emergency placement of this kind is made the
local authority should immediately initiate an EHC needs assessment or
re-assessment • where they are in hospital and admitted to a special school
which is established in a hospital, or • where they are admitted to a special
academy (including a special free school) whose academy arrangements allow it
to admit children or young people with SEN who do not have an EHC plan.
36. 1.30 The last of these provisions enables
the Secretary of State to approve academy arrangements for individual special
academies or special free schools that are innovative and increase access to
specialist provision for children and young people without EHC plans. Those
academies the Secretary of State authorises will make clear through their
Funding Agreement that a child or young person with SEN, but no EHC plan should
be placed there only at the request of their parents or at their own request
and with the support of professional advice such as a report from an educational
psychologist. A special academy or special free school with these arrangements
will be able to admit only those children who have a type of SEN for which they
are designated. They will have adopted fair practices and arrangements that are
in accordance with the Schools Admission Code for the admission of children
without an EHC plan.
37. 1.31 The leaders of early years settings,
schools and colleges should establish and maintain a culture of high
expectations that expects those working with children and young people with SEN
or disabilities to include them in all the opportunities available to other
children and young people so they can achieve well.
38. 1.32 There is a significant overlap
between children and young people with SEN and those with disabilities and many
such children and young people are covered by both SEN and equality
legislation.
39. 1.33 The Equality Act 2010 and Part 3 of
the Children and Families Act 2014 interact in several important ways. They
share a common focus on removing barriers to learning. In the Children and
Families Act 2014 duties for planning, commissioning and reviewing provision,
the Local Offer and the duties requiring different agencies to work together
apply to all children and young people with SEN or disabilities. In carrying
out the duties in the Children and Families Act 2014, local authorities and
others with responsibilities under that Act, are covered by the Equality Act.
40. 1.34 In practical situations in everyday
settings, the best early years settings, schools and colleges do what is
necessary to enable children and young people to develop, learn, participate
and achieve the best possible outcomes irrespective of whether that is through
reasonable adjustments for a disabled child or young person or special
educational provision for a child or young person with SEN.
41. 1.35 Much of the guidance in this Code of
Practice focuses on the individual duties owed to children and young people
with SEN. When early years settings, schools and colleges, local authorities
and others plan and review special educational provision and make decisions
about children and young people with SEN (chapters 5 to 7) and 9) they should
consider, at the same time, the reasonable adjustments and access arrangements
required for the same child or young person under the Equality Act.28
42. 1.36 The presumption of mainstream
education is supported by provisions safeguarding the interests of all children
and young people and ensuring that the preferences of the child’s parents or
the young person for where they should be educated are met wherever possible.
43. 1.37 Special schools (in the maintained,
academy, non-maintained and independent sectors), special post-16 institutions
and specialist colleges all have an important role in providing for children
and young people with SEN and in working collaboratively with mainstream and
special settings to develop and share expertise and approaches. 1.38 Children
and young people with SEN have different needs and can be educated effectively
in a range of mainstream or special settings. Alongside the general presumption
of mainstream education, parents of children with an EHC plan and young people
with such a plan have the right to seek a place at a special school, special
post-16 institution or specialist college. Further details of the arrangements
for Education, Health and Care Plans are set out in Chapter 9.
Observation
a.
Regrettably a cursory google search would appear to
suggest that over time parents, especially disproportionately those with black
and minority children have faced, similar concerns and struggles.
b.
We provided generic references to the school by way
of a recent BBC documentary (special education schools), press reports over
time, Institute of Race Relations report, Official government report, among others.
c.
Therefore, such publicly documented intergeneration
lived experiences would appear to raise at least a perception and a question of the the extent to which race, racial
attitudes and stereotypes,is a contributory factor in
C’s case.
We attach other background material.
Please acknowledge receipt and the next
steps. Kindly respond via this email address.
Kind regards
For and on behalf of C.
14 June 2021
CC Joanna Killian Surrey CEO
Various related bodies