Under-Taught, Over-Policed, Feared, Anthropological Subject, or in School and /or FT educatiion Exclusion? The lived experiences of a black a child with speech and language needs, at a surrey school: South Camberley, Nursery Primary.
# Under-Taught,
Over-Policed, Feared, Anthropological Subject, or in School-Exclusion?
The lived
experiences of a five year old black a child with speech and language needs, at a surrey
school: South Camberley, Nursery Primary?
Key
associated school personnel in terms or correspondence and responsibilities
Mr Jonny
Franks
|
Acting Head of
Site & Standards - James Road |
Mr Jonny Franks |
Designated
Safeguarding Lead/ SENDCO |
Mrs Nicky Wrights
|
Executive Head
Teacher |
Mrs Nicky Wright
Head Teacher |
Designated
Safeguarding Assistant |
|
Head of Site
& Standards - France Hill Drive |
Mrs Maxine
Kurzberg |
Designated
Safeguarding Assistant |
At the time of writing this post, written
to and never responded are Governors and Mrs Kurzberg. Email now states both
Mrs Kurzberg and Mrs Wright appear to blocked from correspondence? Not clear if its
IT issue or intentional. This needs to be clarified given their key management
roles and the buck does stop with them to a greater extent.
Request
for an urgent meeting with school Governors over a month ago has neither been
acknowledged nor progressed. A note on the school website states:
‘The Co-Chairs of Governors are Mrs Gill
Perkin and Mr Mirek Gliniecki who can be contacted via the school office’.
S’ teachers? (not clear what s does or if he is
taught or what is taught and when)
|
Inkpen |
Miss Sakun Thapa |
Teacher |
Data officer for correspondence who have been
very timely responsive despite the lack of the initial responses from the
school.
Craig Stilwell
Judicium Consulting Ltd
72 Cannon Street
London
EC4N 6AE
Email: dataservices@judicium.com Telephone:
0203 326 9174
A.
Follow up request for immediate Educational Assistance,
resources and support to Master C; after serious concerns with the current
school responses or lack thereof; Time being of the essence, any further delay
will negate C communication and literacy development.
B.
And Formal complaint against the School in respect
of:
C’s lack
of timely, comprehensive and appropriate EDUCATIONAL(literacy, speech) support,
especially and more specifically his speech, communication and language needs;
Arbitrary and arguably intemperate and arbitrary restrictions on his school
hours ; interaction and movements notwithstanding a need for appropriate
proportionate supervision.; Overall hostile environment such as refusal to come
in even minutes before 900am unlike his peers which has become a traumatising
trajectory; lack of meaningful transparency ; impositions on parents which is
affront to their human dignity; the contents and extent to which the remit of
the SPLT to make medical diagnosis, state that s should go to a special school,
(which Mr Jonny Franks stated to me on day one after he called me back and
restricted s to 30 mins of school until we protested after a week due to the
trauma for s when physically removed; also repeated by the headteacher Mrs wrights
several times during the meeting of 17th May 2021 with C’s
teacher-note attached); and SPLT remit in stating that s’s hours should not be
increased; SPLT merely repeating in the report in some respects what the school
told her about S, rather than independent contemporaneous multiple interactive
sessions with s. Delay or refusal to send professional attributes and
identities of the two hired persons(adults), their remit, role, duties and
responsibilities vis-a vis C. And the vetting; Delay or refusal to provide a
detailed current plan of C’s daily educational routine/curriculum especially
the communication, literacy and language aspect.
Cc:
·
speechandlanguageservice@surreycc.gov.uk.
·
contact.centre@surreycc.gov.uk
·
SENDAdvice@surreycc.gov.uk
·
info@ekg-speechtherapy.co.uk
CC Ofsted
for information only at this stage enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk
Equalities/human
rights commission correspondence@equalityhumanrights.com
Overview
1.
We are in receipt of a report from the speech and
language therapist appointed by south Camberley primary school for Master ‘C’.
Initial
Observation and why we have contacted you directly.
About C
2.
C is a lovely, sweet, very energetic, intelligent,
cheerful, curious and playful child. He likes football, running, computers,
dancing and music. He is very athletic. He plays his mini piano at home. He is
very caring and affectionate to those he trusts. He is noticeably confident and
has had extensive wide exposure to worldwide travel, visits on trains, London
buses, where he was born and lived for the last four years. C Can touch in and out of oyster on trains,
buses, check outs. Over the years, he has been going to Sunday school, play centres,
soft play, libraries, galleries, parks, swimming pools He likes swimming, is very
athletic and good at computers.
3.
When comfortable and settled, C likes hearing
reading and perusing through books, and pictures. By the age of two S could say
the full alphabet, count to almost twenty and say words like cat, etc.
4.
C however needs further support to improve his
speech and language, literacy which is the fulcrum of his development. His
joining of a structured nursery was interrupted by the pandemic. He was due to
formally start reception January 2021 but there was another lock down and he
started in April 2021 when schools re-opened.
5.
So, C is a human being with agency, aspirations,
feelings and should be treated and accorded the basic human dignity, the right
to play, interact and learn with his peers within the usual standard of supervision
that all schools/nurseries are expected to have in place. For all children considering
the totality of circumstances but remain inclusive.
6.
Rather than nourish, develop and encourage his
strong points and provide support, the school in just a month is acting in a
manner that if the chain is not remedied, can potentially trivialise, diminish
and tarnish his confidence, development and paint him as a real imminent danger
to be physically controlled or even restrained.
7.
Attitudes arguably consistent with how black
boys/males are perceived in some schools and other settings, historically that
becomes a lightning rod to all other forms of life outcomes.
8.
We must remember C is just five, defenceless in
such a new environment and cannot adequately express himself verbally at
present.
9.
There is no verifiable evidence to suggest that the
school, in almost a year to date, has done all it can possibly do within the
law and moral authority to positively impact and prepare for C’ s
education and development. Especially and, speech, communication and literacy.
10. On the
contrary, it would perceptively appear that the school appears to invest most
of their resources to almost prove that he is unteachable, effectively, within
the first thirty minutes of his first day of school in his life. A trend that
appears to gain pace and that is why we are concerned at the overtly negative
attitudes that are consistent with the historical stereotypes of children with
his needs and especially black children.
11. That is
totally unacceptable, and we are seeking immediate support for his education so
he can be the best he can be, to become a fully independent and productive
member of society despite his specific needs.
12. That
should be the focus of every school to every child. Sadly, in our lived
experience, it does not appear to be the case.
Developing
patterns of deliberate and insidious institutionalisation
13. We note
that there appears to be a pattern of extreme emphasis on report writing about
S, rather than supporting him on a routine basis to flourish, succeed and
utilise or stimulate all his potential.
14. A pattern
that is consistent with perceptions
of institutionalisation in particular black children as has been historically documented.
15. While
reports are important, far more important is the real time support the child is
getting, to mitigate the issues in real time and equip him with the tools to be
a fully functioning independent productive member of society.
16. As this
rate, a pattern appears to be emerging that the school is failing S as
described from our account below. No child or family should feel as if they are
objects or subjects of a form of anthropological study, for outside hired paid
folks to write reports about him, police him, especially when they are supposed
to be actively educationally supporting him in real time.
17. And
arguably because of the expended time, meetings, phone calls and
correspondence, and what appears to be persistent resistance, to provide even
statutory obligations, the question must be posed, as to what extent to which
this is potentially wilful, either by inaction, commission or omission or
negligent? It is for others to make that judgement.
18. Sadly,
and rather unfortunately, given the lived experiences, both wider and specific,
as well as well document historical and contemporary contexts, the question, as
to what extent race or the lack of diversity is a contributory or central
factor, must be one that needs immediate attention.
19. Furthermore,
cumulatively, the issue is also whether the pattern either by omission,
inaction, action or commission, is consistent or compatible with the equality,
human rights, education and disability legal stipulations.
20. Aspects which are in short, designed to
pre-empt discrimination and foster inclusion, equal treatment and the best
possible holistic education, development of children, with the full participation
of their parents/families. For better life outcomes.
Key
follow up requests not yet addressed to date.
21. Having
faced what can only be described as a hostile environment, a pattern of low or
no expectation and little or no meaningful support, from south Camberley
school, at the highest levels, we are again writing to follow up our request to
surrey council (educational department) to formally assist in the following.
22. Our last
email to both the school and surrey council that was neither acknowledged nor
responded to, as appropriate. We are reiterate our kind and urgent educational
support request for S as follows:
Educational
support for C regarding his communication and literacy which are at the centre
of his needs.
·
Evidence of what was formally or informally
requested by the school and the responses to that end.
·
Why it is not available more than a month later
after his start and after almost a year after the school was fully briefed by
the parents, SPLT and st P’s nursery.
·
The professional training and identity of all those
(apart from his reception teachers) working with S, in what capacity,
responsibilities and educational value relating to his communication and
literacy needs.
·
C’s daily curriculum in comparison to his peers and
in particular his literacy and communication needs.
·
Who goes to the toilet with C and their role in
this regard to have a better understanding of the support he might need at school?
(written explanation)
·
Any visual and audio educational recordings
associated with c’s education at school to date.
·
With the right support increased hours to C’s
schedule to FT since his peers have more hours than he has and has now been at
the school for over a month.
·
The extreme restricted access and impediment of C’
not playing or interacting with his peers should cease. Learning and
communication can also be through play among children? (Verifiable independent
evidence not provided to date by school)
·
In our daily
experience C interacts or plays around other children and has done for five years
without harm to others or himself if there is adequate non excessive
restriction that allows balancing general safety (a given), independence,
development and mitigation or learning limits.
Background
23. S’s
family have been in touch with the school since around mid-last year at the
height of the pandemic during lock down. S was four years old then and turned five
in September 2020. In all those years, there were no reports of S biting anyone
or being restrained or followed around. In the absence of any job description,
despite written requests, would it be unreasonable to compare this to minders,
or similar, to a five-year-old defenceless, speech challenged child, instead of
focusing on his education?
24. Is it possible there is a link between the
movement and interactive restraints imposed by C’s teacher, Mr Frans in concert
with the headteacher, Mrs Wrights that this may trigger frustration and other
issues?
Previous
child centres
25. C has
been attending children’s centres since around the age of six months bracket
(age appropriate) until the lockdown. These have included, various places. He
was eligible to start school in September2020/January 2021.
26. The combination of lock down and the covid19
pandemic disrupted this until his start in April2020. The school and relevant
parties are fully aware of this and information was provided to the school
several times.
SPLT (speech
and language therapist) and school correspondence
27. S attempted
to join St P’s nursery for 45mins for a couple of days but was denied and a
report was written for a referral to SEN team. We arranged a SPLT through the
council and this was attended online three times? Due to the lockdown. It was a
futile exercise due to the lack of physical interaction.
Experience
to date at South Camberley
28. We
applied for a school place (reception) for September 2020 only one school out of
several admitted us. South Camberley primary, with hindsight, regrettably.
Looking back from experience to date there has been little or no meaningful
support for C in the few weeks he has been there. In the first 30 mins on the 19th of
April 2021 and there appears to be persistently little or no expectations with
what appears to be overt hostility to him and in some cases the parent/s. From some
teachers and senior officials.
Little or
no meaningful support to S to date?
29. In other
cases, it has been a series of a lack of timely or no responses at all to
requests for clarification or information, or in some cases a lack of
meaningful involvement before decisions are made about C; Or full meaningful
disclosure before the fact, as to who is involved with C at school; A clear
daily plan or curriculum has to date has not been provided despite written and
verbal requests to Mrs Wright (the headteacher) and Mr Franks.
30. Paradoxically,
the school has a pattern of imposing meetings in terms of date and specific
times. Insisting upon short notice meetings without mutually convenient times,
or the full agenda or rationale of the meeting.
31. When
reminded about this, inexplicably the insistence continues. This appears
unusual in the ordinary course of events, but also, especially when more
precautions can be taken in advance with proper planning or even via zoom.
32. This
would appear to suggest comfort in acting in this manner towards some parents.
Written suggestions were sent to the school of how something as straightforward
as agreeing a meeting should be arranged professionally considering the
totality of circumstances and the human dignity of all parties involved. We
hope going forward the approach will change.
First
week
33. On the
first day, we were called back within thirty minutes and told to take S home. He
was restricted to 30 mins out of around 6hrs of school time for his peers. For
the whole of the first week. The explanation given was to the effect that they
were not ready for him or other difficult to comprehend reasons, looking back
now.
34. The next
day as we arrived around five minutes to time, not knowing where to go and
followed other parents, many of whom were standing around, we were accosted by C’s
teachers, shouting(literally) that we should not be here until 9.00 and that
they were not ready for him. We stated that it was five minutes to 900am which would
be standard even to arrive 15minutes early. We had found many other parents
already there and hanging around.
35. At this
point, C wanted to go in as he saw his toys and was really upset because he
was not let into the school. Confused and concerned by the lack of
professionalism and the rude way we were introduced to the school, I asked for
the headteacher or to speak to Mr Francks with whom I have been communicating
for almost a year or so.
36. It was
then that I began to realise that C had been restricted from interaction within
the normal environment and would only come in for thirty minutes until further
notes.
37. No
written or proper explanation, in a meaningful way, had been provided and
neither were we involved in making that critical decision of curtailing a
child’s decision in a haphazard and arbitrary manner.
Following
weeks to date
38. Over the
next few weeks, fully knowing that this was his first days in this environment
with no parents supervision and his inability to speak at this stage, which we
fully briefed the school about almost a year before, we were getting negative
running commentaries, on every unnecessary little negative thing that
ordinarily children might do, in such a scenario. (used advisedly with respect
but believe to be accurate perception) About him, with teacher’s visibly
hostile in terms of the body language and in some cases verbally. On a couple
of occasions, when follow up questions were asked, there was no response, or a
huff and puff(literary)and the teacher/s walked back in.
39. On a
memorable such occasion, C’s school when asked if plays outside, she said, it
is playing but it is still interacting or words to that effect. Asked what she
meant, she simply ignored us and began to walk inside. The implication or
interpretation appeared to be that S was not allowed to interact or play
outside because he would be interacting with other children? Why? What is the
point of a school or learning by play for a five-year-old? We stated that if
that is the case, we hope s is not being discriminated against, using his
specific needs against him. And that would be unacceptable.
40. We wrote
to the school explaining these issues and the fact that on some occasions, S was
extremely upset of being essentially physically removed from the school, only
after thirty minutes and he could not understand why. At one point he ran back
inside, and I was asked to get him. When I went back in, I saw C knocking at the
door which was firmly locked and there was no other person in the room.
41. We wrote
to Mr Franks and the trustees about this issue. Mr Franks stated that C was not
alone in the room with an adult. There is no independent evidence to verify his
claims. Since we have never had the opportunity to observe C at school or his
class environment. I also called the surrey Sen team and Ms C from the early
years, who it is understood relayed this to the school. Their general counsel
was, referring me back to the school.
42. We raised
concerns about S’s trouser apparently not being able to be pulled up when doing
a wee. S does not pull down his trousers when doing a wee and he is fully
capable of pulling them up as a matter of routine and is fully potty trained. He
may need on occasion, further prodding to properly wash his hands but overall,
with the right support and consistency he does it. It was reported to us by the
teacher that he does this now and does not remove his shoes.
43. About the
shoes. The Shoes. This appeared to be a major issue from the
beginning. C has always attended play centres where shoes have been removed.
There may be other potential issues involved but by and a large when told to
keep them on and he tends to do so.
44. We pointed out that the trousers were a bit
tight at the front due to the fashion only being elastic at the back. We bought
two other big size trousers which are easy to move when doing a wee. C tends to
only wee when out and given that he is only at school for two hours, there
should be no reason whatsoever, why he should ever remove his trouser in the
toilet fully. If he needs to be changed for some reason, the school
should call us, and we take him home due to his inability to communicate.
45. Given the
background by virtue of this note the school should never undress C in any way
or shape or form and /or without our well-informed expressed consent(writing).
46. We noted
that there was a pattern of the same adult apparently reporting that S bit him.
C is five and cannot express himself verbally and it is impossible to ascertain
what was said or done to him before that happened.
47. There is
no independent verifiable evidence or have not been provided a CCTV to learn
what the issue would be as a learning point for him. In any case, that would
require a persistent level of physical proximity to S by the adult, which would
not allow a course correction even if S wanted to do it or to be spoken to not
to do it. We have never had the opportunity to observe S in the new setting, so
we simply hear what the school says given that S cannot now verbally express
himself.
48. We wrote
to Mrs Wright to review this immediately to stop this from happening and raised
this in a meeting but no formal response to our email has been received. There
was a phone call and an email instructing us to attend a meeting without prior
mutual agreement despite having been in a meeting a day or so earlier (17th
05 2021). We indicated that the requests were straight forward and did
not require a meeting per se and certainly one without any agenda or that is
simply an imposed one.
49. The
requests could be provided by email. The requests were: C’s daily
educational routine; The duties, responsibilities and educational duties or
role or titles of the two people that are said to be one to one with C. Their
professional training, background and identities. And the full report and
details of the SPLT and asked her to contact us so we can brief her and discuss
or collaborate with S ’s speech therapy. We were not contacted before the
fact and only received an email on or around the 28 of May 2021, at 15:59
from Mr Francks, when school was off, and it was a day before half term
holiday.
50. A note of
that meeting is attached here. But in the meeting, it became apparent to us,
that S to date received little or no meaningful education, especially in
relation his speech, or interaction with his peers. From the both the teacher
and headteacher’s own account, it would appear S is left to spend most of his time
being what can only be termed as being policed by two adults, whose identity
and training, was neither disclosed to us before or after they were appointed
even after we asked. We would like to know, the professional identities,
attributes and vetting of the said adults from outside the school, brought in
by the school.
51. C had picked up some infection from the school
(around the 19th of May 21) and he was off until the next Monday. When he came into school, he was generally okay
but was a bit weak. Around just after 10am, I got a call to pick him up that he
was lying on the floor and the nose dripping. We had tied a loose scarf round
his neck and explained to the individual who picked him up at the door, that it
was for his nose, because he has a bit of a flu and he was a bit week. I do not
know if this was relayed or was used to help with the nose dripping.
52. On around
Tuesday, (24th May 21), before the half term week, on the day people
were asked to dress in shapes, S had been off ill for around three days. He
woke up earlier and was keen to go to school and he insisted on leaving earlier
than usual. We walked slowly and the long route, but we got to school around 15
min early.
53. C was
keen to go in and he could not understand why he was not being let in unlike
others who were walking in through the same door. He naturally became terribly
upset and cried loudly for a prolonged period. We rang the bell and other
members of staff could see us. At around 8:58am someone came and slightly
opened the door, ajar, and said someone will come up.
54. By this
time other parents were queuing and were looking baffled as to what was going
on and asked if I had rand the bell and said that we did. Later S was let in
but again, for the second time we were made to feel unwelcome, and the atmosphere
was very hostile.
55. This was as
an extremely un-dignifying and distressful episode that could be totally avoid
if in some cases S can be allowed in before 9 if he gets there a bit early. It
just made me wonder what happens when he is inside the school.
General
observation and questions (freedom of information requests)
56. The
headteacher, said that it is as if S is telling her/them that ‘he does not want
to be there’ or words to that effect, during the meeting of 17th May
2021. And that she has seen children come into school and leave worse. Why
would that be the case if they were in an environment where they felt cared
for, wanted, nurtured, supported and educated rather than hire two people to
police them and label them ‘for safety’ reasons.?
57. The SPLT
report emailed to us by Mr Franks on or around the 28th of May 2021
at 15:49 pm, at the beginning of the school term despite having requested it a
week or so earlier.
We note
the points made in the SPLT report and respond as follows:
For the
Attention of the speech therapist (Elizabeth Gunner) and the school (formal FOI
requests) cc data officer/ surrey council
58. Can you
please confirm what is meant by ‘S ‘is supported on 1:1 to stay safe?
59. And how
this is enforced in practice and by who?
60. Could you
please clarify what educational assistance has been provided to S since 19 April
2021?
61. Could you
please confirm what speech and language interaction apart from observation and
writing reports? That you did in the 60 minutes you attended with C?
62. Could you
please confirm and provide written evidence of any educational assistance
provided to S to date?
63. That has
been formally requested by the school or yourself in respect of S to date?
64. Could you
please confirm the professional basis for the statement regarding a special
school for S having not provided any evidence of meaningful or protracted
speech and language support or any support in place or plan or consultation
with the parents?
65. Is it the
role, duty and professional responsibility of a speech and language therapist
to make a medical diagnosis?
66. Do you
have medical qualifications to make such a lifelong and impactful diagnosis? If
so, please provide the data and evidence was the basis for that diagnosis?
67. Is it the
role, duty and professional responsibility of a speech and language therapist
to make that pronouncement?
68. If so, could you please provide the
professional evidence for support or whether the school asked you to do that?
69. Could you
please confirm if it was in your remit to make such a serious consequential
direction about a five-year-old you have only met for 60minutes? I.e., special
school?
70. Can you
please provide evidence of compatibility and consistency with the relevant
policy, statutes and Ofsted guidance or directions, to effectively by extension
stigmatise, segregate and exclude pupils because of their specific needs or
disabilities, from mainstream education?
71. Are you
aware of the
pattern of such historical and
contemporary pronouncements especially in relation to black and
Asian children that now appears to be associated with race as a factor?
72. Did you
make any efforts to speak to the parents as they requested, via the school, to
coordinate and give some background and other issues to ensure that S gets all
the support he needs?
73. Are you
aware of any play therapist or educational psychologist or any other
educational related support that has been provided to C Since his attendance at
south Camberley?
74. Could you
please confirm the professional background and identity, training of the
persons who are apparently ‘hired ‘to follow C rather than educate him or
provide him with educational support (it would appear in the absence of any job
and duty provided despite several requests?
75. Could you
please provide more overall understanding as to whether you personally observed
S ‘biting’ anyone?
76. Could you
please provide details of what happened i.e., what was said or done to him before
the said 'biting’ happened in much detail as possible? Are you aware of any
video footage of the whole context?
77. Is it
factually accurate to say that S does not respond to his name? Did you mean
sometimes (depending on circumstances or never)?
78. Overall
given your confirmation that the school has not yet provided educational or
expected appropriate support to C, including regular interactive therapy, could
you please provide evidence that supports the consequential basis for your
reference to a special needs school? As opposed to all the right support, not
currently available in mainstream education.
79. As a
speech therapist, what was the remit and relevance of your conclusion about the
hours not being extended beyond 2 hrs a day for S.
80. Were you
fully aware of the overall background in which C had been summarily and
arbitrarily excluded to 30 mins from day one? But for the insistence of the
parents for a minimum of two hours?
81. Is it
appropriate to relay hearsay or information told to you by the school that you
did not actually observe contemporaneously during your observation for the 60
minutes over two sessions?
82. Please
note these all-formal freedom of information requests to all concerned i.e.,
school and the speech therapist.
83. In
addition, we are requesting that given the immediate need for educational and
interactive speech therapy for S (as opposed to being policed and a subject of
reports by paid folks), we would like to be as far as reasonably possible, involved
in the appointment of any further such professionals beforehand (as
appropriate) given our negative experience to date vis a-vis S's needs and
support.
84. Furthermore,
based on the observations in the report and the resulting series of questions,
we do not think that the current speech therapist (Ms E Gunner) is the right
fit for S.
85. We would
recommend that appropriate consideration is given to the cultural and diversity
needs associated with S's background to avoid persistent perceived stereotypes
and racial attitudes that are historically well documented when dealing with
kids of S's attributes and background.
86. Therefore,
for all these reasons, we would reiterate a new and suitable speech and
language therapist is appointed with immediate effect. And this is embedded in
his daily routine since this is the area, he needs most support and appears to
be the cause of any frustrations.
87. It was
expected, given the almost year-long briefing to the school, this would be a
routine support mechanism, but it appears even this is either piecemeal or not
even provided(interactively) over a month after C started. We must wonder what C
has learnt or does on a routine basis?
88. Was there
a plan by the school and adequate preparation before or even during his over a
month stay?
Therefore:
89. We are
extremely concerned of the impact that the excessive policing, and restriction
of movements and barred free interaction is having on S and how damaging this
can be at this stage in his education. It appears consistent with some of the
lived experiences and documented reports of the treatment of especially black
boys in school. We are extremely worried about the school’s labelling of S as
‘a danger’.
90. C is only
five and needs support with communication and literacy. The approach taken by
the school is a major worry and cannot be overstated. The school must provide
support not essentially institutionalise him into a pipeline to the criminal
justice system by way of exclusion, failure to provide literacy and
communication teaching and frequent ubiquitous report writing and documenting
of every minor thing that he does during school. It is saddening that this
feels as if he is a subject of an anthropological study, with arguably
potentially perceived comparable colonial echoes.
91. We again
appeal to the education authority that S is provided with emphasis actual
education despite his needs as opposed to what would appear to unreasonable
overt or excessive treatment as a danger to be simply policed and managed
without any pre disclosure to his parents, despite numerous requests to that
end.
92. There
appears to be a lack of timely and appropriate support, tampered with excessive
negative policing and attitudes we have experienced from day one, even as
parent/s appear to be turning into an almost hostile environment. As opposed to
an environment where educational nurturing, adequate support and positive development
are the central focus towards c.
93. We look
forward to receiving a timely response with the requested evidence to that
effect so that c can be educated, nurtured, educated, encouraged and allowed to
succeed to his fullest potential in an inclusive and diverse environment that
is consistent with society in general and human rights pursuant to a child of
his needs.
Yours Sincerely
For and on Behalf of C
30.05.2021