Examples of
our advice:

Child A was 8 when he was accused of stealing food from his boarding school kitchen. We asked the school why the boy was so hungry and whether other boys were also taking food on night-time raids.

Child B was bullied at her prep school, where Mum worked part-time and was reluctant to complain. We advised on alternatives for the girl’s education and she has now settled in happily at her local state primary school.

Child C was accused of sexually assaulting another boy. We advised the accused child’s parents on how best to protect their son and safeguard his ongoing education.

Searching Pupils at School

Unhelpful Guidance from the DfE on the Searching of Pupils at School

In July 2011 The Department for Education issued some new, statutory guidance for schools, called "Screening, Searching and Confiscation - New Statutory Guidance: DfE 00056-2011"

As Nicholas Hancox wrote in the Law of Education Bulletin (Lexisnexis Butterworths), it will have a very short shelf-life, as the current Education Bill is apparently going to require a fresh set of Guidance to be issued. Meanwhile, this set is intended to encourage teachers to use with confidence the powers that they already have. The Guidance is aimed at all schools.
The Guidance gives some recognition to the fact that the Common Law has long permitted teachers to search their pupils for contraband. But the key issue of "consent" is fudged yet again. The Guidance first says that the pupil must agree to a Common Law search -or the search is unlawful. That is wrong, or at least too simplistic, so a footnote adds that "the ability to give consent may be influenced by the child's age and other factors". That is also wrong, or at least too simplistic. Your Editor holds to the view that a teacher in loco parentis is entitled at Common Law to require a pupil to empty his or her pockets during a reasonable search for contraband. A fortiori, a teacher who reasonably suspects that a pupil is carrying a knife, a firework a small bottle of whisky or a parcel of illegal drugs is entitled to launch some kind of search for the suspected goods. Now we come to the question of consent - not consent to the principle but consent to the method of enforcement.
The principle is clear; the teacher is entitled at common law to know ether or not the pupil has brought any of this contraband into school - and (if so) the teacher is entitled to confiscate the contraband and to punish the pupil. But what exactly can a teacher to do, in a legitimate search for this contraband? The DfE's view of the common law position seems to be that the teacher can search the pupil if the pupil agrees, but not if the pupil withholds a consent which the pupil may or may not have the legal ability to give or withhold. That is not helpful advice.
What the Common Law actually says is that a teacher may do in loco parentis exactly what a reasonable parent would do. A reasonable parent can search a very young son or daughter and can demand a truthful answer from a teenage son or daughter. A reasonable parent will not engage in a forcible physical search of a 17 year old, but has the power to punish that child, if he or she does not co-operate. The problem for the DfE of course is that this area of law is all nuance and judgement; what the Department wants is a yes-or-no solution.
The DfE Guidance therefore glosses over all of these nuances and moves rapidly on to the unfortunate rigidity of section 550ZA (of the 1996 Education Act), which it describes as 'searches without consent'. How far (or whether) section 550ZA improved the Common Law on that is a matter for debate, but we are where we are - and the Guidance sets out the statutory position.

School Uniform Rules

What happens if a pupil arrives at school wearing incorrect school uniform?

The law is clear; school uniform can be enforced in state schools and academies and at independent schools. This 2007 advice to state schools from the then DCSF sets out a quite sensible view:


13. A head teacher can discipline a pupil for breach of uniform/appearance policy. However, DCSF does not consider exclusion to be an appropriate response to breaches of school uniform/appearance policy, except where they are persistent and defiant. Where a pupil repeatedly refuses to comply with school uniform policy even if they do not otherwise display poor behaviour, we believe that exclusion could be an appropriate response, depending on the circumstances of the case.
.
14. A head teacher or a person authorised by the head teacher may ask a pupil to go home briefly to remedy a breach of the school's rules on appearance or uniform. This should be for no longer than is necessary to remedy the breach. This is not an exclusion, but an authorised absence. However, if the pupil continues to breach uniform rules in such a way as to be sent home to avoid school, or takes longer than is strictly necessary to effect the change, the pupil's absence may be counted as unauthorised absence. A pupil must not be sent home indefinitely or for longer than is strictly necessary to remedy the breach as this could amount to an unofficial exclusion. In all such cases parents must be notified and the absence should be recorded. When making this decision, the child's age, vulnerability, how easily and quickly the breach can be remedied, and the availability of the parent, will need to be considered. If the pupil then repeatedly infringes the school's rules on uniform or appearance, this may constitute a disciplinary offence and may be grounds for exclusion.
.
15. Where a pupil is not adhering to school uniform policy, a school should be considerate and discreetly try to establish why not. There may be good reasons why a pupil is not attending school in the correct uniform. For example, their uniform may have been lost, stolen or damaged. Sending the pupil home or excluding them may not be appropriate in every case. If a pupil is not wearing the correct uniform because their parents are in financial difficulties, a school should be sensitive to the needs of the pupil. A school should give parents time to purchase the required items and/or consider whether a school or local authority clothing grant can be supplied. A pupil should not be made to feel uncomfortable, nor discriminated against, because their parents are unable to provide them with the required items of school uniform.
.

Conclusion written by Nicholas Hancox
A School Uniform policy is enforceable, but schools should try quite hard not to exclude (expel) pupils for minor breaches of the policy. Other punishments are often more appropriate. When pupils consistently or repeatedly use breaches of school uniform policy as a way of rebelling against the school, short-term and ultimately permanent exclusion may well be justified.