Dear Mirek( Governor of South Camberley)
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
We have contacted you because of the the almost one year we have engaged with the school and the complete lack of trust and good faith in the school especially the named individuals who are in senior positions and the importance of what is unfolding regarding a vulnerable child's education.
Its also incorrect as you have been informed that we have refused meetings per se. We had formal meetings,emails, phone calls and informal meetings with Mr Jonny Franks, Mrs Kurberg et al.
Which are sometimes completely a futile exercise while the child's physical and overall well being as well as his literacy, inclusion are precarious on a daily basis.
We do not have any independently verifiable evidence of what he actually does or if he is taught at all, given that Mrs Kurzberg and his teacher said that he simply plays with his bus which he brings from home.
We are concerned about a comment that he had his trousers fully down in the toilet when he was just doing a wee which he never does. And apparently he was upset but repeated written requests for details have not been provided.
He appears to be allegedly unlwafully excluded from FT education.
We are extremely concerned about a lack of evidence to confirm that he is fully included in activities with his peers.
We are concerned about his being locked out of the school repeatedly when he gets there minutes before 9 am.
We are concerned about how he is physically handled even in our presence. So what happens behind closed doors especially that he is currently not fully verbal.
We requested basic information regarding the professional identity of the individuals who are not his teachers associated with him.
We are concerned about the arbitrary and alleged unlawful pronouncements by a hired individual called Elizabeth Gunner in which she purports to make what can be interpreted as medical diagnosis, full time exclusion of a child, ( restircting for 2 hrs) and reference to a special school.
We are concerned about the erroneous claims by Mr Jonny Franks that we effectively refused ALL SLT provided by the school or words to that effect; as well as written claims by Mrs Kurzberg that it was agreed that C would attend school on a PT basis of 2 hrs on an open ended basis, by implication or interpreation or words perceived to be of that effect.
These issues would appear to be arguably and allegedly inconsitent with the guidance and statutory requirements.
Mr Jonny Franks et al has a tendency of sometimes imposing abrupt meetings, with no mutually proposed or agreed agenda, rationale or time mutually pre agreed as would be in the normal course of business. We have raised this issue in writing but we were ignored.
We therefore requested pre sent information to allow a constructive purposeful and positive meeting.
Mr Jonny Franks in some cases, characteristically, tends to ignore and or delay formal written requests for basic information about the education and welfare of our own child at school. And when pressed he sometimes responds at the eleventh hour usually on a friday, such as 15:59 on the day of half term break. This causes more distrust and a loss of good faith.
There also appears to be a tendency to project the context and facts to either yourself or the council in innacurate, misleading or sometimes factually incorrect manner.
Overall, over the last two months we have been in contact with the school since C started school , our lived experience has been one of being shouted at by teachers on the second day, bse C came to school a few minutes before 9am, a child physically removed from school after thirty minutes for a week until we put a stop to it, being locked out of the school , mischaracterised etc.
It feesl like a toxic hostile environment at the hands of the school and the named individuals are : A white female Mrs Kurzberg and a white male Mr Jonny Franks( for descritption).
Worse, it would appear that based on our lived intergenerational experiences, in addition to part of an email characterisation by a Jessica Brooke from the council( we dont know who misled her factually in some partial respects), that race, racism, racial attitudes are a perceived, contributory factor.
Simply put would a white child with similar needs be treated in that manner? It is for others to judge.
Therefore, that is the sort of background that we feel merits the immediate attention of the Governors, council and ofsted.
Whilst we are ready to attend a purposeful meeting, with witnesses the issues above do NOT require a meeting , such as the teaching of a child and other points.
In our many many years of contact with schools ,colleges and other educational bodies, we have never seen this level of overt hostility and prevention to deny a black five year old defenceless child, with speech needs full time, substantial and transparently coordinated learning, treatment and development.
Especially by folks paid by the taxpayer to do exactly that to all children irrespective of their social, economic and racial back ground.
Thats why we felt it important to contact the governors et al.
We hope you will look into these issues as a matter of critical urgency for all the reasons stated above. Everyday that passes this five year old black child loses out on inschool, verifiably meaningful learning on a full time basis in a main stream school as stipulated by the equality act, education act, human rights act and international conventions on children and education.
We hope the named individuals trusted with public resources will simply let this black child flourish.
Kind regards
For and on behalf of C at Camberley Nursery, infant and Primary