The EHCP Pupil, the Assaults and the Governor's Email

First: the disclosure, because it is the highest risk

The self-harm disclosure goes to the designated safeguarding lead immediately, is recorded, and triggers a referral to CAMHS or the GP plus a written safety plan agreed with the parents and the pupil. A child at risk of serious harm outranks every procedural question in this case, including the exclusion debate. I would also check whether the disclosure has been recorded properly, because if it has not, the school's safeguarding file is the first thing a solicitor will ask for.

Second: the risk to others, managed not ignored

Two staff have said they will not work with the pupil, and a TA is off with stress. I would not dismiss this as resistance; staff safety is a legal duty and a precondition for the pupil staying in school. So: a written risk assessment covering the classroom, transitions and unstructured time; a named key adult; a clear, rehearsed de-escalation plan; and a decision about which staff work with the pupil, made explicitly rather than by attrition. Refusal to work with a pupil cannot be resolved by pretending it has not been said.

Third: escalate the local authority in writing

Two postponed annual reviews and a provision gap are the root cause, not a background detail. I would write to the LA's SEND service setting out the dates, the requests, the exclusions and the safeguarding concern, and request an urgent interim review. A contemporaneous paper trail is both the right thing and the school's protection when the solicitor's letter is answered.

Fourth: the governor

Reply to the governor privately, the same day, noting the conflict of interest and that I cannot discuss an individual pupil with them; copy the chair. Do not concede, do not argue, and do not leave the email unanswered.

The legal frame

• Permanent exclusion must be a last resort, on the balance of probabilities, for a serious breach of policy or where allowing the pupil to remain would seriously harm the education or welfare of others.
• Where a pupil has an EHCP, the head must consider whether the behaviour is a manifestation of SEN and whether the school has made reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Fixed-term exclusions already totalling a substantial number of days invite scrutiny of whether exclusion is being used as a substitute for provision.
• A pupil with 61% attendance and a self-harm disclosure is at heightened risk out of school. Permanent exclusion would remove the protective factor while the LA has still not reviewed the plan.

What I would do instead, and why it is not soft

1. Urgent interim review with the LA, parents and, where appropriate, the pupil.
2. Increase and specify provision: additional adult support at known flashpoints, a modified timetable that keeps core GCSE teaching, a quiet base, and explicit social and emotional provision named in the plan.
3. A time-limited, reviewable arrangement with defined success criteria and a review date every half term - so the school is not drifting, but is also not excluding for want of a plan.
4. Explore alternative provision for part of the week only if it is commissioned, quality-assured and part of the plan - not a way of quietly removing the pupil, which would be an unlawful part-time timetable.

When I would exclude permanently

If, after proper adjustments and an escalated plan, the pupil remains a serious danger to staff or peers, and the risk assessment shows no arrangement can manage that, then a permanent exclusion can be the right decision - and the governor's pressure would have nothing to do with it. The test is the evidence, not the volume of complaint.

The governor

• Conflict of interest: a governor whose child is in the class has a personal interest and must not receive confidential information or participate in any related decision. I would notify the chair in writing and ask that it be minuted.
• Role clarity: my reply would be short, courteous and firm - individual governors do not direct exclusions or provision; the head decides and the governing body reviews, and I cannot discuss a named pupil with them.
• The media hint: I would not be blackmailed by it, but I would not ignore it either. I would inform the chair and the trust's communications lead, so that if a story appears there is an agreed position and no improvised comment. Any public statement must not identify the pupil; data protection and the pupil's welfare govern what can be said.

The parents' solicitor

Answer through the school's complaints procedure and within the stated timescales, with evidence rather than reassurance: the provision actually made, the adjustments, the exclusion records, the requests to the LA and the LA's responses. Where the school has fallen short - and two postponed reviews suggest it has, at least in escalation - say so and set out the remedy. Conceding an error early is cheaper and more credible than defending everything.

The staff

Staff need to hear from me before they hear from a solicitor or a journalist: what the risk assessment says, what support they have, that their safety is my responsibility, and that refusing to work with a pupil will be handled through a proper conversation, not a disciplinary reflex. I would also check on the TA who is signed off, because how the school treats that colleague will shape whether anyone reports a concern next time.

The principle

Every audience here wants a different thing. The only defensible course is to decide on the pupil's needs and the safety of others, document it contemporaneously, and let the same factual account answer the governor, the solicitor and the newspaper.