Shari, half days constitutes a pattern of removal. I think what this one is trying to say, is that if the staff feel that the reason for suspension is not connected to the child's disability or not part of a regular pattern of behaviour, then they don't have to count it. It sounds like it could be used (or they might at least try to use it) as a catch-all way of opting out of responsibility.
But if you can show that it IS all connected, he's getting suspended for the same sort of problem each time, then they're not going to be able to use this one.
Possibly the catch is, "school personnel decide...".
If the child is out for more than 10 days consecutively then the school staff can't claim it's not connected. By the same logic, half days also MUST be considered a pattern. And a lot of what you're claiming here, includes all those half days they foisted on wee.
Looking at those next three points (over the page) - it is bleedin' obvious that wee's removals DO constitute a pattern. So if the school somehow manage to claim on paper that the absences are unconnected, you should be able to appeal. Either there should be formal proceedings options available to you, or you simply scream loud and long to everybody who will listen, and make a very loud fuss to the media if you have to, about failure of due process to protect a child form educational bungling and self-serving.
Shari, they'd have to be idiots to try this one. It's just too flamin' obvious that wee's absences ARE connected.
It's one thing for someone to say that his behaviour is unpredictable, and they can't understand why he can be OK one day and not the next; but a very different thing for them to claim that his suspension in Incident 1 is totally unrelated to his suspension in Incident 2.
I don't blame you doing your homework like this - it's what I'd be doing too. But this loophole is definitely closed to them. If they try it, I'll be laughing. And they will have proven themselves to be even more brainless than we already suspect.
Marg