As Max Bygraves Used To Say

A tale from Trinity of how Doug got rid of student S - OR - Do unto others as you would have done to you

Back in Autumn 2006  S was a successful sixth former at Trinity Academy , Thorne. He was so respected that Lisa Aveyard, the Senior Learning Mentor, used him as a peer mentor to work with younger pupils.

But the S made a mistake. One weekend, about 10 miles from Thorne, he 'borrowed' someone's car without permission. He had access to the keys and took a girl (not a Trinity student) that he knew to another house where they did some damage. S returned the car and the key. Nobody else from Trinity was involved or knew about the incident.

The police eventually caught up with S and he initially denied involvement. He was scared that his parents would find out. In his panic he turned to Lisa for advice. It was a big mistake. She went to vice-principal, Doug Blackledge, who eventually threw him out.

Doug's letter (4.12.06) said 'I must inform you that I have decided to terminate [S's] place at Trinity Academy with immediate effect'. He cited 'behaviour likely to bring the name of the Academy into disrepute'.

Trinity thought that was the end of the matter. They did not seem to know that permanently excluding (expelling) a sixth former should follow the same legal procedures as those for an under 16 pupil. Doug did not have the power to exclude - that rests solely with the principal. However, S asked if he could appeal.

Principal Ian Brew replied referring to 'Mr. Blackledge's recent request' i.e. he believed that Doug had requested S to leave not thrown him out.

On 11^thJanuary 2007 S and his parents met with Brew, Blackledge and two directors (legally 3 directors were required for the appeal). The panel upheld the exclusion. (By law the directors' panel must meet to consider any permanent exclusion anyway)

By now I was involved and very concerned. The DfES (now DCSF) guidelines stated that a school could only exclude a pupil for behaviour outside school and outside school hours if 'there is a clear link between that behaviour and maintaining good behaviour and discipline among the pupil body as a whole'

As no one at Trinity knew about the incident until S told Lisa it could not affect the behaviour of other pupils. The guidelines also allowed a principal to educate a student off-site while an allegation of serious criminal activity is investigated - not to expel the student.

 S pleaded guilty at Youth Court and was given a 9 month referral order - the fact that Trinity had already expelled him meant that they had found him guilty before the court did.  Trinity's expulsion was a second punishment for the same crime. Even the Youth Offending Team told Trinity that S should be reinstated and not punished twice. Trinity would not budge.

Under DfES regulations S was entitled to an independent appeal and so I helped his parents to write a letter to get one (Trinity should have advised them automatically of this right). Ian Brew replied (23.2.07) stating 'the Academy has followed the correct policy and made a lawful decision to remove S from the roll'. I contacted DfES.

On  26^th February , just  3 days later, Ian Brew wrote to S's parents stating 'I must advise you that you are entitled to an independent appeal'   -  a complete U-turn after the DfES  had leaned on him.

Following permanent exclusion from a state school the LEA arranges the independent appeal. In academies it is the academy that arranges it. Written evidence from the academy should reach the parents and appeal panel members seven days before the appeal hearing (which was planned for 26^th March 2007).

However, when S's parents received the evidence (produced by Doug) they were mortified. It contained a section 'Incidents since the first appeal'. In this Doug tried to introduce evidence that since the exclusion S had been seen driving a car recklessly and the car may not have been insured. Doug stated 'I have grave concerns over the credibility of any argument (made at the first appeal) that S, as claimed, has made an error and has learned from his mistake'.  Introducing new evidence, especially about events after the exclusion, is not allowed. The appeal was then postponed until a new date in May and panel members were told to disregard Doug's inadmissable evidence.

I attended the appeal to support S and his mother. Brew and Doug were immediately tied in knots. Their written and verbal evidence was contradictory. Doug said he had consulted Brew over 'asking' Simon to leave. His letter had not asked - it had told him to go, using the power of exclusion which only Brew had. Trinity's case was based on the 'bringing Trinity into disrepute and setting a bad example to pupils'.

S had successfully started a college course in January 2007 and had no intention of returning to Trinity if the exclusion was overturned. But he wanted the exclusion off his record. His 9 month referral order became a 'spent conviction' when it ended, so he would not have to declare his misdemeanours on application forms. The appeal was lost, despite the 'adviser' to the panel suggesting Trinity had a weak case. The independent chairman was very pro-Trinity and kept saying how awful stealing a car was. He had no understanding of the DfES guidelines.

S succeeded in his college course and needed a reference for a job. When he approached Trinity he informed me that he was told that Trinity would never give him a reference. This shows just how arrogant and hypocritical Trinity Academy is.

S was thrown out for behaviour likely to damage Trinity's reputation and for setting a bad example to pupils. He was 17 years old at the time. He was denied a reference.

Doug had an affair with Lisa (whom he line-managed and who was married to a senior colleague). This was totally against Trinity's Christian pro-marriage ethos and was quickly seized upon by pupils. It was certainly behaviour likely to damage Trinity's reputation and set a bad example to pupils. As a vice-principal with many years experience he should have known better. He wasn't thrown out and he got a glowing reference.

What I find most objectionable is how Doug was so determined to get rid of S that he even tried to smear his character by introducing evidence that he knew was inadmissible.

It shows that Doug is not good with paperwork and making sure all the evidence agrees. He was very flaky under pressure; no a quick thinker. If FA opens expect plenty of bluff and arrogance. Despite all his experience of exclusions at Trinity I would doubt if Doug knows all the rules !!

Tony