My son has a learning disability (LD) and attends a secondary special school
designated for Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities (SPMLD).

He has a Statement of Special Educational Need (SEN Statement) that
describes him, amongst other things, ...as likely to run away. of ...having
no sense of danger..., and that this relates to road safety issues. He is
described as needing full-time 1-to-1 support including during meal and
break times.

Recently he has run away from home and put himself at great risk. I notified
the school and advised them that they needed to be extra vigilant. The next
day he went missing from school for 2.5 hours.

The school is immediately adjacent to a main 'A' road having a high volume
of traffic and a 40mph limit.

The school has a some fencing to the road but much is dilapidated, it also
has a shared access with one of the access/exit point ungated and quite open
to the world.

Although we were very concerned at this incident and surprised at the
shortcomings in perimeter security we sent our son back to school thinking
that his support workers would have learned a lesson and be much more
vigilant.

Two weeks later he was taken on a school outing. I wrote in his home/school
liaison book that he was very excited at this outing and that they needed to
keep an especially close watch. The teacher wrote in reply that he was
indeed hyper that day and that, at some point, he had lost his jumper - but
they only noticed it on the coach home.

At that point we felt we could not rely on the school to ensure a vigilant
watch was maintained and that considering the failings in the perimeter
security that to send him back to school would be to put him at risk, and
consequently withdrew him from school while we reviewed our position.

I complained to the school governors - in fact all authorities up to and
including the Sec. of State.

The principle allegation being that the school was, Res Ipsa Loquitur,
negligent in carrying out
its Duty of Care - in that children properly looked
after, should not find themselves put at such risk.

We have since found supporting case precedent (Case No: QBENF 99/0376/1) in
which the Court of Appeal found in favour of the child. That case exactly
mirrors ours - with the exceptions that the child in that case was injured
and attended a primary mainstream school.

However, while I am the full-time carer for my son, looking after him 24/7
is proving too much and we are now forced to consider my wife giving up work
to help care for and educate our child.

While we have not yet suffered any great financial loss, we have suffered
considerable mental anguish.

The lawyers we have spoken to seem to take the attitude that because no
injury occurred and there has been no financial loss - there is not a lot we
can do. However, we are advised that the case precedent is very much in our
favour.

I would point out that we complained to the HSE and they reviewed the school
and LEA's safety policy and have decided no action is necessary. This will
be the subject of a further complaint to the HSE!

We feel that secure perimeter boundaries should be mandatory for schools
such as our son attended and would like to hear of any legal opinion that
might help ensure this is implemented at our school. Equally, to stop this,
or any other school, from acting in such a negligent way.

We feel that only by bringing an action for negligence will this school (and
its LEA) take the matter seriously.

So...does any one have any ideas about how we should proceed or what could
be done etc.

Regards,

H.

H wrote:

My son has a learning disability (LD) and attends a secondary special school
designated for Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities (SPMLD).
the subject of a further complaint to the HSE!
.... snip loads

We feel that secure perimeter boundaries should be mandatory for schools
such as our son attended and would like to hear of any legal opinion that
might help ensure this is implemented at our school. Equally, to stop this,
or any other school, from acting in such a negligent way.

I do not think they can make a school into a prison, which is what, in
effect, you are saying.
In their defence, what can they do? It is obviously possible for him to
get away, even if he has a full time carer - not every minute can he be
watched, and it cannot be classed as negligence if he sneaks away at any
opportunity if he so wishes - to stop him doing that, he needs to be
locked up.

A solution would be to find a school/establishment that does have
adequately secure surroundings to stop escapes.
Forcing all such schools to have secure fencing would cost a fortune, as
well as making the schools look like a prison - I'm sure the vast
majority of pupils would not like to go to such a place.

We feel that only by bringing an action for negligence will this school (and
its LEA) take the matter seriously.

But that will just take more money, and time away from the LEA, when it
appears they do not have enough funds as it is in the current economic
climate.
Would it really be worth it, when it appears that you have already been
trying to force your views onto them, and it has been rejected each
time. There comes a time when you need to see both sides, rather than
having a blinkered outlook on a single viewpoint.

He has only got out once?
That doesnt seem to be particularly negligent.
Losing a jumper - kids lose stuff all the time, teachers cannot be held
responsible for pupils every item of clothing. My daughter has come home
with someone elses bag on more than one occasion, yet I wouldnt call her
teachers negligent, it just happens.

So...does any one have any ideas about how we should proceed or what could
be done etc.

Find an establishment that meets your requirements, and apply to get
your child into it. You may need to travel over the Country to get such
a place, and it may need time on a waiting list to get into it.
No 'normal' school can be made totally secure, so maybe accept that the
school are trying their best, and realise that everyone is fallible at
times.

Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

On Aug 21, 5:55*am, (A.Lee) wrote:
H wrote:
My son has a learning disability (LD) and attends a secondary special school
designated for Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities (SPMLD).
the subject of a further complaint to the HSE!

... snip loads

We feel that secure perimeter boundaries should be mandatory for schools
such as our son attended and would like to hear of any legal opinion that
might help ensure this is implemented at our school. Equally, to stop this,
or any other school, from acting in such a negligent way.

I do not think they can make a school into a prison, which is what, in
effect, you are saying.
In their defence, what can they do? It is obviously possible for him to
get away, even if he has a full time carer - not every minute can he be
watched, and it cannot be classed as negligence if he sneaks away at any
opportunity if he so wishes - to stop him doing that, he needs to be
locked up.

A solution would be to find a school/establishment that does have
adequately secure surroundings to stop escapes.
Forcing all such schools to have secure fencing would cost a fortune, as
well as making the schools look like a prison - I'm sure the vast
majority of pupils would not like to go to such a place.


But this is not an ordinary school it's an SPMLD school. My limited
(but non-zero) experience of these schools (in Cambridgeshire) is that
they are usually very secure indeed and that such matters are taken
very seriously indeed. This applies not only to the risk of
youngsters getting out of the school but also within the school where
there are big dangers also, for example the swimming pools and
kitchens. To lose a child on an outing is a very major incident and
would be taken very seriously indeed. The staff to student ratio is
very high in these schools.


Robert

"A.Lee" wrote in message
...
H wrote:

My son has a learning disability (LD) and attends a secondary special
school
designated for Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities
(SPMLD).
the subject of a further complaint to the HSE!
... snip loads

We feel that secure perimeter boundaries should be mandatory for schools
such as our son attended and would like to hear of any legal opinion that
might help ensure this is implemented at our school. Equally, to stop
this,
or any other school, from acting in such a negligent way.

I do not think they can make a school into a prison, which is what, in
effect, you are saying.
In their defence, what can they do? It is obviously possible for him to
get away, even if he has a full time carer - not every minute can he be
watched, and it cannot be classed as negligence if he sneaks away at any
opportunity if he so wishes - to stop him doing that, he needs to be
locked up.

A solution would be to find a school/establishment that does have
adequately secure surroundings to stop escapes.
Forcing all such schools to have secure fencing would cost a fortune, as
well as making the schools look like a prison - I'm sure the vast
majority of pupils would not like to go to such a place.

We feel that only by bringing an action for negligence will this school
(and
its LEA) take the matter seriously.

But that will just take more money, and time away from the LEA, when it
appears they do not have enough funds as it is in the current economic
climate.
Would it really be worth it, when it appears that you have already been
trying to force your views onto them, and it has been rejected each
time. There comes a time when you need to see both sides, rather than
having a blinkered outlook on a single viewpoint.

He has only got out once?
That doesnt seem to be particularly negligent.
Losing a jumper - kids lose stuff all the time, teachers cannot be held
responsible for pupils every item of clothing. My daughter has come home
with someone elses bag on more than one occasion, yet I wouldnt call her
teachers negligent, it just happens.

So...does any one have any ideas about how we should proceed or what
could
be done etc.

Find an establishment that meets your requirements, and apply to get
your child into it. You may need to travel over the Country to get such
a place, and it may need time on a waiting list to get into it.
No 'normal' school can be made totally secure, so maybe accept that the
school are trying their best, and realise that everyone is fallible at
times.

Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

I agree, in principle, with the working party set up to look into school
security following the stabbing of Robert Lawrence and the Dunblane
shootings that there is a need to balance security of the school on one hand
without wanting to turn it into a prison.

However, do remember, this is not an ordinary school - it is a school for
the MOST profoundly challenged children. Children who do not have impulse
control, children who are unable to make rational decisions, children who in
every sense are at risk.

I also think that to make comparisons between reasonable school security and
prison security is to obfuscate the issue of balance.

Prisons have very many layers of security, the last of which is a secure
perimeter. In balancing the needs of children who, by definition, are at
greater risk than the average child - clearly greater weight must be given
to the measures that would ensure there protection. A secure perimeter in
this context is not out of place. Yes it would have a cost impact but that
would only be a one off capital cost. Indeed it was the case that the school
governors had considered the dilapidated fencing and felt that it was not
worth replacing as to make an effective fence (their words) they would have
to include all exits. In short, they were aware the fencing was not
effective yet chose to do nothing about it.

With regard to the jumper, it is not the lose of the jumper that is at issue
but the indication that a child who requires to be watched VERY closely -
wasn't!

I make the analogy between an air traffic controller who did watch with
sufficient alertness and the 1-to-1 support designated to watch my child. If
they fail to watch carefully the potential for a dangerous situation to
occur is magnified, the consequences of which can very quickly become
disastrous.

In choosing NOT to fence, the school and LEA have 'gambled' with the lives
of 'at risk' children - that is to say they know they have children who have
limited awareness, they know the security is flawed, they know a properly
constructed fence would cost a substantial sum yet chose not to install one
because they also know that any negligence claim would be met by their
insurance, which they are obliged to pay for. It's a case of 'heads' no one
escapes so we don't have to pay for fencing - 'tails' a child escapes and is
injured but the insurance will pay - thus the 'gamble' is one the school
cannot lose.

Clearly, this is not a normal school - and parents should not need to travel
the length ands breadth of the country to find a special needs
school....with a fence.

H.

"H" wrote in message
. uk...
My son has a learning disability (LD) and attends a secondary special
school
designated for Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities
(SPMLD).

He has a Statement of Special Educational Need (SEN Statement) that
describes him, amongst other things, ...as likely to run away. of
...having
no sense of danger..., and that this relates to road safety issues. He is
described as needing full-time 1-to-1 support including during meal and
break times.

Recently he has run away from home and put himself at great risk. I
notified
the school and advised them that they needed to be extra vigilant. The
next
day he went missing from school for 2.5 hours.

The school is immediately adjacent to a main 'A' road having a high volume
of traffic and a 40mph limit.

The school has a some fencing to the road but much is dilapidated, it also
has a shared access with one of the access/exit point ungated and quite
open
to the world.

Although we were very concerned at this incident and surprised at the
shortcomings in perimeter security we sent our son back to school thinking
that his support workers would have learned a lesson and be much more
vigilant.

Two weeks later he was taken on a school outing. I wrote in his
home/school
liaison book that he was very excited at this outing and that they needed
to
keep an especially close watch. The teacher wrote in reply that he was
indeed hyper that day and that, at some point, he had lost his jumper -
but
they only noticed it on the coach home.

At that point we felt we could not rely on the school to ensure a vigilant
watch was maintained and that considering the failings in the perimeter
security that to send him back to school would be to put him at risk, and
consequently withdrew him from school while we reviewed our position.

I complained to the school governors - in fact all authorities up to and
including the Sec. of State.

The principle allegation being that the school was, Res Ipsa Loquitur,
negligent in carrying out
its Duty of Care - in that children properly looked
after, should not find themselves put at such risk.

We have since found supporting case precedent (Case No: QBENF 99/0376/1)
in
which the Court of Appeal found in favour of the child. That case exactly
mirrors ours - with the exceptions that the child in that case was injured
and attended a primary mainstream school.

However, while I am the full-time carer for my son, looking after him 24/7
is proving too much and we are now forced to consider my wife giving up
work
to help care for and educate our child.

While we have not yet suffered any great financial loss, we have suffered
considerable mental anguish.

The lawyers we have spoken to seem to take the attitude that because no
injury occurred and there has been no financial loss - there is not a lot
we
can do. However, we are advised that the case precedent is very much in
our
favour.

I would point out that we complained to the HSE and they reviewed the
school
and LEA's safety policy and have decided no action is necessary. This will
be the subject of a further complaint to the HSE!

We feel that secure perimeter boundaries should be mandatory for schools
such as our son attended and would like to hear of any legal opinion that
might help ensure this is implemented at our school. Equally, to stop
this,
or any other school, from acting in such a negligent way.

We feel that only by bringing an action for negligence will this school
(and
its LEA) take the matter seriously.

So...does any one have any ideas about how we should proceed or what could
be done etc.


You can't bring an action for negligence unless a loss has actually been
suffered. The loss of a jumper doesn't seem worth suing for, and if you
wrote to make a claim they'd quite possibly pay up anyway.

Of course, if you wait until your child has sustained personal injury you
will have a much stronger case, but you'll wish you had done something to
prevent the injury.

Realistically you have no options other than to write letters of complaint
until you get a satisfactory assurance that they have systems in place to
protect the children adequately.

He has a Statement of Special Educational Need (SEN Statement) that
describes him, amongst other things, ...as likely to run away. of ...having
no sense of danger..., and that this relates to road safety issues. He is
described as needing full-time 1-to-1 support including during meal and
break times.

Just because a child has an SEN statement doesn't mean that the school
gets any resources to deal with that child, at least short term.

The SEN statement may say that the child needs 1 on 1 support full-time.
That often translates into funding for a teaching assistant two days a
week, in 18 months time for a trial period.

Think about what would be required to provide full-time cover. You need
more than one member of staff per child in addition to the qualified
teacher, plus enough slack to cover holidays and unexpected illness.

These people have to put up with being spat at, punched, kicked and
stabbed on a daily basis with almost no legal way to protect themselves
or the other children. Then parents complain they aren't doing a proper
job and threaten legal action. It always amazes me that people are
prepared to do the job at all.

wrote in message
...
He has a Statement of Special Educational Need (SEN Statement) that
describes him, amongst other things, ...as likely to run away. of
...having
no sense of danger..., and that this relates to road safety issues. He is
described as needing full-time 1-to-1 support including during meal and
break times.

Just because a child has an SEN statement doesn't mean that the school
gets any resources to deal with that child, at least short term.

The SEN statement may say that the child needs 1 on 1 support full-time.
That often translates into funding for a teaching assistant two days a
week, in 18 months time for a trial period.

Think about what would be required to provide full-time cover. You need
more than one member of staff per child in addition to the qualified
teacher, plus enough slack to cover holidays and unexpected illness.

These people have to put up with being spat at, punched, kicked and
stabbed on a daily basis with almost no legal way to protect themselves or
the other children. Then parents complain they aren't doing a proper job
and threaten legal action. It always amazes me that people are prepared to
do the job at all.

Again this is another obfuscatory reason - for doing nothing.

You should also know that parents have no say about funding - we can only
indicate what our child's needs are - the only recourse we have is to
complain if the resources allocated are not in line with the child's needs.

What you're saying is that 'authorities' (Government, Local Authorities -
L.As) know that certain members of society need substantial care - yet
knowingly fail to meet them adequately, as you point out - by under-funding.
Consequently, I am not surprised that few people want to do such a difficult
job for such little reward.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that under-funding is an
excuse that mitigates the school's and L.A's Duty of Care. Clearly, any
argument based on those principles is a nonsense - as it would mean no one
would ever be required to do anything if they had to spend!

In this case, the L.A could have put in place far more effective
arrangements to stop my, or any other child, from putting themselves in
harms way.

H.

The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that under-funding is an
excuse that mitigates the school's and L.A's Duty of Care. Clearly, any
argument based on those principles is a nonsense - as it would mean no one
would ever be required to do anything if they had to spend!

There are approximately 15 million children in the UK. The education
budget is around 80 billion pounds. Assuming that none of that budget
goes into higher education, that's around about 5 thousand pounds per
child. Even if you spent no money on anything else it isn't possible to
pay for one-on-one care for everyone with a budget like that.

Alternatively if we allocate the whole education budget to the 1.75
million in England and Wales (ignoring Scotland) with an SEN statement
then we just about get a figure that makes what you want possible.

What makes your case so special? What about the quiet little girl in the
corner who doesn't make a fuss, doesn't throw chairs around the room but
with the right education could go on to design a practical nuclear
fusion reactor and improve the lives of billions of people?

wrote in message
...
The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that under-funding is an
excuse that mitigates the school's and L.A's Duty of Care. Clearly, any
argument based on those principles is a nonsense - as it would mean no
one would ever be required to do anything if they had to spend!

There are approximately 15 million children in the UK. The education
budget is around 80 billion pounds. Assuming that none of that budget goes
into higher education, that's around about 5 thousand pounds per child.
Even if you spent no money on anything else it isn't possible to pay for
one-on-one care for everyone with a budget like that.

I'm not suggesting every SEN child has one-to-one support - where did you
get that idea?

Only the most dedicated parents manage to achive the right level of support
for their child. In fact it takes a pretty committedd, knowledgeable and
wealthy parent to obtain an acurate diagnosis of illness in children. In
trying to ensure our son got the help he so desperatly needed lead to the
loss of my business, my health and in getting his Statement to identify him
correctly, £4k - the last of our savings.

In some parts of the country, health authorities actively hinder the
diagnosis or the help available to such children. Indeed senior figures have
resigneed because of the difficulties and obfuscation surrounding this
issue. These misdiagnosed children frequently go on to become a burden to
society in the very worst way, by ending up in prison for behaviour issues
that are simply beyond their control, excaerbated by earlier, totaly
innappropriate, schooling.

Alternatively if we allocate the whole education budget to the 1.75
million in England and Wales (ignoring Scotland) with an SEN statement
then we just about get a figure that makes what you want possible.

And what, exactly, is it you're suggesting I want that is so unreasonable?
Are you seriously suggesting children lacking an ability to make rational
judgement and having no sense of danger should be treated the same as the
average child? Are you saying they do not need greater protection? Or are
you simply saying you don't care what they need just so long as it doesn't
cost any more?

What makes your case so special?

I have not said my case is 'special'.

What about the quiet little girl in the corner who doesn't make a fuss,
doesn't throw chairs around the room but with the right education could go
on to design a practical nuclear fusion reactor and improve the lives of
billions of people?

Or perhaps she's the drunk teenager staggering about on a Friday night. Or
perhaps the girl featured in the Goverment safety advice film - knocked down
and killed by a vehicle travelling at 40mph instead of 30mph? Perhaps you
could explain why, in the light of so much government sponsored publicity,
the Government doesn't implement their own advice and enforce 30 mph limits
on roads where schools are situated - or perhaps the little girl is the
Government's bright spark spending taxpayers money on advertising in the
hope of reducing accidents...instead of introducing practical and concrete
measures to reduce speeds where it matters most.

Most children injured or killed in weekday daytime road accidents are
children in mainstream school, who attended the school for registration and
then 'skipped off' because the school is not able to ensure children remain
within their control.

Now, since schools act 'in loco parentis' it seems to me that schools
allowing children to 'skip off' are no better than negligent parents.
Schools need to control the entry and exit of pupils to and from their
establishments - and controlling access and egress to a building or a work
site does NOT make the place a prison - or, if it does, then most of the
large financial institutions, ports, airports, warehouses, PC Worlds etc are
peopled by 'inmates' rather than 'employees'.

There is little point in making these 'what if' scenarios. Suffice it to
say, my position is that every child needs to be valued, respected, cared
for and resourced sufficiently to achieve their full potential. FWIW, I have
long advocated that 'bright' children too should also be seen as having
'special needs' and be provided with the extra resources to meet their
needs.

I feel your comments are somewhat politically inspired, which of course
you're free to make. However, while I'm happy to advance the argument for
helping children with SEN I don't think this newsgroup is the place to
debate these issues thus do not intend to be drawn further in that
direction - unless it has a direct legal bearing on my original post.

H.

On 21 Aug, 11:05, "H" wrote:

With regard to the jumper, it is not the lose of the jumper that is at issue
but the indication that a child who requires to be watched VERY closely -
wasn't!

I think you are making too big a meal of that. Staff may well have
been very carefully watching your boy to make sure he didn't run away,
and simply missed that he put a jumper on the seat beside him at
lunchtime which then fell on the floor. The "escape" case is
definitely worrying, I agree.

Ian