ds kept in at lunchtime tmrw

[DorothyL]

ds will be kept in at lunchtime tomorrow because he didn't finish his work in time. He has SN and a one-to-one TA.

Would you feel that's fair enough or should he not be punished like that when concentration is a known issue with him and he has a one-to-one whose job it is, amongst other things, to keep him on task?

[twinkletoedelephant]

Ds1 and 2 have a sn, ds 2 has a 121. Neither are ever punished by taking away outside playtime. Golden time or choosing time gets taken away at 5 minute increments, always with an opportunity to earn back.

Both teachers agree playtime is a chance to blow of steam and attempt to socialise with the other kids as well as run round like loons.

Surly keeping him in would have a negative impact on his work in the afternoon as he would be cross/upset over the missing playtime?

[Shockers]

It's difficult without knowing the child.

I supported a child in year 6 last year, who had become so used to having everything done for him that he would happily sit passively and do as little as possible. It wasn't my role to chivvy him constantly, more to aim for self motivation and independence on his part, with my support.

I did keep him in a couple of times when he'd been particularly lazy (no other word for it in those cases, unfortunately!), and found that a gentle reminder often spurred him into action.

If he's being kept in the classroom at lunchtime, so is the teacher, or TA!

[debedoo]

I guess it depends on why he didn't finish his work? Was he messing about, for so then, yes he should be punished. If he simply couldn't do the work, then he shouldn't be.

[JakeBallardswife]

I would guess it's a culmination of things rather than a one off. It may be the teacher needs to follow through and to show they are serious about getting work completed. Or at least working for the time allowed.

[Lurkedforever1]

Depends on whether completing the work in the time allowed was within his capabilities. Keeping him in because his sn made it an impossible task would be unfair. Whereas if he didn't finish for reasons not related to his sn, i.e. because he was messing about, in the same way any nt child can do, then yes it is fair.

[DorothyL]

I'm not sure what exactly happened. Ds is upset because he hates his routine to be disrupted.

[WombatStewForTea]

It depends on the reason why. As a teacher I know how hard a child can/should work and if they don't work hard enough why shouldn't they lose their play like a other children who don't have sn? As long as children are given a warning and a chance to improve their effort then that's fine with me. However I work in a school where loss of playtime is in our behaviour policy. We don't have golden time/free choice to take away and even when we did the children simply didn't care! If it's a case of the work was too hard and didn't meet the child's needs then obviously that would be unfair.

[DorothyL]

So it turns out this happened in the afternoon when his one-to-one wasn't there and he had no individual support...

[WombatStewForTea]

It still depends on whether the work he should have been doing was something that he could do independently.
My experience of children with one to one is that some children can become overly dependent and refuse to do anything by themselves even when capable.
I'm not saying your ds should lose his play, just giving potential reasons why the teacher made that decision.

[DorothyL]

He is crying and saying he doesn't want to go to school - this worries me, the saving grace has always been that he has been happy to go to school

[WombatStewForTea]

I think you need to get to the bottom of what he was meant to be doing and why he didn't do it.
Could he be upset because he's feeling guilty?

[BrandNewAndImproved]

Its used in schools where they only have dc with behavioral problems. Yes it helps to blow off steam but if they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing they have to learn there are consequences.

[DorothyL]

His one-to-one very much makes a point of stopping him from becoming overreliant on her.

[tethersend]

I'm not a fan of taking playtime away for any child. It's very often counter-productive, IME.

In addition to this, if your DS has identified issues which prevent him from working at a consistent speed, then this tactic becomes as effective as punishing a wheelchair user for not completing the 100m sprint.

How old is he?

[DorothyL]

He's 9

[tethersend]

I'd have a quiet word with the SENCo.

[cuntycowfacemonkey]

Loss of playtime is a sack of shite and lazy discipline/behaviour management on behalf of the teacher for any child SN or not.

I would address it with the teacher and then approach the SENCO.

[Buttercup27]

I find that losing playtime is usually a last resort as it means you have to give up valuable time to supervise the child. If he is losing itdue to lack of effort/being silly then its a good deterrent next time. If its due to lack of understanding/ support then that's very different and not acceptable.

[IoraRua]

Losing playtime is very effective, but I do it as a last resort. They don't like it, I don't like it but ime I only ever have to do it once and the message gets through.
Different for a SEN child though. If the work was at his level, he had teacher support and was simply messing around - as kids with SEN can do, like any other kid - then I would say fair enough, provided he was given warnings and the consequences were explained. Given that he was crying though am not sure.
I would have a word with the teacher to find out what happened.

[IoraRua]

And I agree with BrandNew. I taught in a school like the one she (he?) describes. We were very strict - had to be! And very effective too.