Skip to main content
Close Button
Donate
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 82 subscribers
  • Views 214 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Exclusion from school because of Autism

NAS94240
13 days ago

Hi all,

My daughter has Autism and is at a private, full-boarding school. Within the last 5 weeks she had a mental health crisis and was sent home. Since then she has only been given very limited access to the school and her friends. She was not allowed to go on a school trip to Alton Towers because she could not be properly supervised. We have learnt that certain people who have a prominent role in her pastoral care believe that "Autistic children should not attend full-boarding schools" and we have now been summoned to a meeting with the Headmistress where we believe it will be confirmed that she will be permanently exlcuded from the school at the end of this term.

Since her mental health crisis, my daughter has been assessed by CAMHS crisis team, a consultant psychiatrist and begun therapy at a specialist centre dealing with teenage and adolescent mental health. All of these people agree that she should be back at school. Whilst the CAMHS team believe that she remains a risk to herself, the psychiatrist reports that she is low risk for suicide and self harm, but believes she remains a vulnerably individual. CAHMS and the psychiatrist agree that therapy is required.

Our daughter is performing well academically at this school, in on numerous sports teams and has made many friends; she desperately wants to remain at the school and rejoin as a full boarder. She has broken no school rules that we justify permanent exclusion.

What I am trying to understand is whether a permant exclusion from school would be a form of discrimination against my daughter under the Equalities Act, and would be very grateful for any thoughts or experiences that you are able to share with me.

Many thanks. Bill

Parents
  • 11 days ago

    It is not posable to comment on your picific situation because of forum rules. I do however think you should conult a lawer. I will brifly cite a number of aspects of the equality act you may be unaware of.

    part 2 (sections 4 to 27) describe difrent forms of discrimination. part 6 describes the forms of discrimination prohibited in education.

    The relivent section are

    • section 6 (definition of disability)
    • section 13 (direct discrimination) This is clasic descrimination, the because you are X type descrimination.
    • section 15 (discrimination arising from disability) the least well known and understoold form of discrimination. the because you did X (where x was caused by a disability) discrimination.
    • section 19 (indirect discrimination) this is discrimination by stenlth. We are making rules / conditions that make it harder for a protected group with out a good reason (often with the intention of pushing them out).
    • sections 21-22 (reasonable adjustment) The duty to bend rules and offer special consesions to help strugeling disabled people
    • section 85 (Pupils: admission and treatment) a list of activities where primary / secondary schools are not alowed to discriminate. (includes admision, expulsion and the provision of education plus lots more)
    • section 91 (Students: admission and treatment) a list of activities where universities and adult / 6th form collages are not alowed to discriminate. (similar to section 85)

    I ask a few hypotetical questions about a hypothetical pupil:

    • can a mental health crisis be caused by autism (within the meaning of section 15)? Yes it can. It doesn't need to be the only factor or the direct factor. If but for a pupil being autistic they would not have had the spicific crisis it will be 'caused by' autism in the legal sence.
    • Is sending a disabeled student suffering a mental health crisis home unfavorable treatment? Yes usually since student benifits from education, esspecially if being sent home worses their mental health.
    • Can it be justified as a proportionate way of achiving a ligitimate aim? Maybe but the bar is quite high. the courts consider 4 factors
      • ligitimacy of the aim. Ligitimate aims might include safeguarding the childs wellbeing or preventing class disruption
      • Is the action rationally conected to the aim. Would a rational pesrson think this would actually help. Maybe but school exclusion can sometimes make things worse too so the court would look at the information avalable to the school regarding the pupils mental state and how exclusion effected them.
      • Is the action minimaly detramental. If they was another course of action, a posibly more expecive or dificult course of action, that would have been less detrimental to the student it's usually unjustifable to not do the less detramental thing instead.
      • Proportionality. Does the detriment to the pupil out weight the benifit of the ligitimate aim? If so it's unjustifiable.
    • Was the school aware at the time pupil was disabled? If no then they have a defence. knowing but not realising disability might be relivent to the situation is not a defence.
Reply
  • 11 days ago

    It is not posable to comment on your picific situation because of forum rules. I do however think you should conult a lawer. I will brifly cite a number of aspects of the equality act you may be unaware of.

    part 2 (sections 4 to 27) describe difrent forms of discrimination. part 6 describes the forms of discrimination prohibited in education.

    The relivent section are

    • section 6 (definition of disability)
    • section 13 (direct discrimination) This is clasic descrimination, the because you are X type descrimination.
    • section 15 (discrimination arising from disability) the least well known and understoold form of discrimination. the because you did X (where x was caused by a disability) discrimination.
    • section 19 (indirect discrimination) this is discrimination by stenlth. We are making rules / conditions that make it harder for a protected group with out a good reason (often with the intention of pushing them out).
    • sections 21-22 (reasonable adjustment) The duty to bend rules and offer special consesions to help strugeling disabled people
    • section 85 (Pupils: admission and treatment) a list of activities where primary / secondary schools are not alowed to discriminate. (includes admision, expulsion and the provision of education plus lots more)
    • section 91 (Students: admission and treatment) a list of activities where universities and adult / 6th form collages are not alowed to discriminate. (similar to section 85)

    I ask a few hypotetical questions about a hypothetical pupil:

    • can a mental health crisis be caused by autism (within the meaning of section 15)? Yes it can. It doesn't need to be the only factor or the direct factor. If but for a pupil being autistic they would not have had the spicific crisis it will be 'caused by' autism in the legal sence.
    • Is sending a disabeled student suffering a mental health crisis home unfavorable treatment? Yes usually since student benifits from education, esspecially if being sent home worses their mental health.
    • Can it be justified as a proportionate way of achiving a ligitimate aim? Maybe but the bar is quite high. the courts consider 4 factors
      • ligitimacy of the aim. Ligitimate aims might include safeguarding the childs wellbeing or preventing class disruption
      • Is the action rationally conected to the aim. Would a rational pesrson think this would actually help. Maybe but school exclusion can sometimes make things worse too so the court would look at the information avalable to the school regarding the pupils mental state and how exclusion effected them.
      • Is the action minimaly detramental. If they was another course of action, a posibly more expecive or dificult course of action, that would have been less detrimental to the student it's usually unjustifable to not do the less detramental thing instead.
      • Proportionality. Does the detriment to the pupil out weight the benifit of the ligitimate aim? If so it's unjustifiable.
    • Was the school aware at the time pupil was disabled? If no then they have a defence. knowing but not realising disability might be relivent to the situation is not a defence.
Children
No Data