Annex B
RECOMMENDATION 1:
EXCLUSION APPEAL
PANELS SHOULD
ALWAYS HAVE
A LEGALLY
QUALIFIED CHAIR
RECOMMENDATION 3:
IN THE
ABSENCE OF
A LEGALLY
QUALIFIED CHAIR
EXCLUSION PANELS
SHOULD HAVE
THE SERVICES
OF A
LEGALLY QUALIFIED
CLERK
We do not accept these recommendations. The
majority of the respondents that commented on them supported our
view. Being legally qualified is not a pre-requisite for applying
the principles of natural justice. Making legal qualifications
a requirement for chairs or clerks would tend to make proceedings
more formal, which could alienate or intimidate some parents.
The change would require legislation and there would be no guarantee
of an adequate supply of legally-qualified volunteers.
We agree that chairs and clerks need good-quality
training. We are therefore commissioning on-line tutor-led training
materials for chairs and clerks. These should be available in
April 2004.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
EXCLUSION APPEALS
SHOULD BE
HEARD BY
THE SPECIAL
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
AND DISABILITY
TRIBUNAL (SENDIST)
We do not accept this recommendation. A majority
of the respondents that commented on it agreed with our view.
The great majority of excluded pupils do not have statements of
SEN. Local panels are intended to provide parents with an accessible
and rapid mechanism for appealing against the exclusion of their
child. SENDISTs are organised on a regional basis and their average
disposal time for cases is over four months. Transferring exclusion
appeals to SENDISTs would therefore mean longer journeys and higher
travel costs for parents and longer delays in determining the
outcome of appeals. It could also transmit the misleading message
that all bad behaviour was the result of some condition beyond
the child's control.
RECOMMENDATION 4:
THE SECRETARY
OF STATE'S
GUIDANCE TO
EXCLUSION PANELS
NEEDS TO
INCLUDE MORE
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDANCE
ON THE
ROLE OF
THE CLERK
We accept this recommendation, as did the majority
of respondents. We are reviewing our current guidance with the
intention of producing revised guidance next year.
RECOMMENDATION 5:
THE GUIDANCE
TO EXCLUSION
APPEAL PANELS
SHOULD EMPHASISE
THE BENEFITS
OF HOLDING
A PRE-MEETING
BEFORE THE
HEARING TO
CLARIFY THE
ISSUES UNDER
APPEAL AND
AGREE THE
PANEL'S
STRATEGY FOR
THE HEARING
We accept this recommendation, as did the majority
of respondents. Our revised guidance will cover this issue.
RECOMMENDATION 6:
THE GUIDANCE
TO EXCLUSION
PANELS NEEDS
TO INCLUDE
BETTER AND
MORE DETAILED
ADVICE ABOUT
ACCOMMODATION FOR
APPEAL HEARINGS
We do not accept this recommendation. The law
prescribes a short time scale within which independent appeal
panels must be convened. We do not believe it would be right to
make this more difficult by banning the use of council premises
which, for some hearings, may be the only accommodation available
at short notice. We will remind local authorities that, when they
communicate with parents, they should make clear that appeal panels
are independent of the authority. We will emphasise this in our
revised guidance.
| 
