To think that NT children miss out in school inclusion policies.

I wasn’t pretending, it wasn’t clear, why so hostile? My post is explaining how everyone is being failed by “inclusivity” so you were actually agreeing with me.

I haven't read the full thread so please forgive me if this has already been suggested.

Please email your mp regarding this. The Government have released their plans to reform the SEND system which includes putting the majority of children with EHCP's who are currently in SEN schools into mainstream. Schools will not get adequate funding or support. Infact those children who keep their EHCP's will recieve a predetermined package of support ratherthan support which meets their needs.

If you think kids in mainstream are hard done by now, just wait. If these reforms go through it will not be just SEND kids who are impacted it will be all kids.

I write this as a parent of a child with SEND who will stay in special school due to the severity of their needs and of a child without SEND who went to a selective free grammar.

Of course inclusion programmes are not intended for children who don’t need special accomodations.

The kids who are being violent are being failed just as much as the kids they are hitting. Don't pretend you didn't understand my post.

Who do you mean by “they”?

But if inclusion policies allow schools to have designated spaces for pupils who find it difficult to be in a mainstream class in a position to learn there may be improvement for some in some schools.

Our youngster is in a secondary state which has different classes for ability and options for pupils who find main classes difficult to be in or school refusers to allow an integrated return.

It works it seems to me. Ours is a NT, top set, GCSE student. The school has many pupils of different needs and abilities. There is a space for most.

Classes for the more able students are not disrupted, classes for average pupils are at a pace for maximum achievement, time and resources can be targeted where needed.

Increasingly schools arr being sanctioned and prevented from excluding violent pupils for reasons citing inclusion policies.

@itsgettingweird You mention that the violence could be caused by abuse. This is irrelevant.
Protecting the victims of the violence should always come before accommodating a violent pupil because there's a reason to their violence. Students can't be guinea pigs exposed to violence whilst schools are forced to jump through hoops to demonstrate they have tried to be inclusive.

The violent students have to be removed, provided with help as appropriate, and reintegrated if and only if they demonstrate to as sure a degree of certainty as is realistic that they are safe to be around for teachers and other students.
If only finite resources are available and a choice has to be made between safety of pupils and providing everyone with an education, then safety of all pupils it has to be.

It’s all about saving money! Inclusion is just a smokescreen.

Sounds like they are being failed then.

It might not be what it’s about, but it’s the net result. I’ve direct experience of this in my own school. Two seriously disruptive and violent children, needs identified and diagnosis in place, so much being done to support them and still having a huge and negative impact on their respective class groups. Finally things got bad enough for each of them to receive suspensions in the last term this year. They do not belong in a mainstream school but because of their “right” to a place there will continue to be facilitated to the detriment of 18 + other children (many of whom also have additional needs)

But that’s not what an inclusion policy is about.

it’s not about including violent pupils.

it’s about looking at what barriers there are to learning and working to remove them. The disruptive violent child could be being abused. They could have unidentified need.

I absolutely agree nobody should put up with violence and the systems to respond to this also need to be in place. But that’s a behaviour policy and not an inclusion policy.

Inclusion policies are solely about how to create an inclusive environment.

Sorry, I missed your point. However, seeing the way, DGD’s school have treated her, I don’t think they have felt any obligation to do anything for her. A consultant child psychiatrist diagnosed severe ADHD and significant autistic traits (under Right To Choose). Other independent professionals diagnosed some considerable specific learning difficulties. The school says they are entitled to ignore private reports, and thinks all DGD needs is praise!

Since when was praise a treatment for severe comprehension difficulties?

I agree with you there, and there's no accommodations at all made for ND teachers who regularly end up burned out. I also don't disagree that there's not enough provision for giftedness (which is, in itself, a form of ND) and that it's not sustainable to have so much disruption in schools.

It all comes down to money.

About 80% of problems for teachers and children would immediately vanish if classes were capped at 20 and there were many, many more special schools for the children that can't (or won't) cope in mainstream but the funding for that isn't forthcoming.

Agree with this. My DS is almost 6 and he’s in the top reading group, passed phonics screening with flying colours and is fantastic at maths. He has SEN, he won’t always reliably sit still in the classroom and disengages if he isn’t interested so needs a TA. He also doesn’t reliably communicate with language though this is improving through speech therapy.

He belongs in mainstream just as much as my NT children because he’s both highly academic and he’s also a lovely boy. He doesn’t lash out or have meltdowns, he’s been toilet trained since 2. He’s great and fuck anyone who thinks he shouldn’t be included.

I’m not really sure what you’re asking here. Are you upset that kids with SEN are in mainstream schools at all and think they should all be in specialist provision? Are you upset they get a TA and extra support because they’re not NT and require it? What is it you’re annoyed about exactly?

My DS is neither violent nor disruptive and has never lashed out at anyone (apart from his brother 🙄). He was however once assaulted in mainstream primary when his one full-time 1:1 LSA was deployed elsewhere. There can be many reasons why young people need multiple adults supporting them and why they require a special school. Fortunately our LA saw sense when we started the tribunal process.

I can well imagine that’s the case. Here in Scotland there has been a recent case where a girl hit back a bunch of boys who had been bullying them for months with the school doing nothing about it. The girl’s mum got lawyers involved and the school backed down on the suspension. I think this is the way forward. People taking legal action against LAs for providing inadequate education and also ignoring their duty to safeguard children.

Surely it’s cheaper in the long run for a LA to set up a special school and a PRU for violent and disruptive children rather than hire endless assistants to try to ensure children who cannot cope in mainstream don’t lash out in the classroom? I think once more parents start suing the LA for not just providing a specialist school but also for endangering their children in the classroom things will start changing. They must change at some point otherwise kids and teachers being severely injured is going to become commonplace.

The local authorities have a legal duty to provide a suitable school.

What LAs regard as suitable isn’t necessarily in any way remotely suitable. Our LA wanted our son to attend a gigantic mainstream school where he’d need two full-time LSAs and to arrive at each lesson 5 minutes late, leave 5 mins early, and learn through the window in the classroom door standing in the corridor. Genuinely this was their idea of suitable.

They have a legal duty to provide an education not a school. They insisted my son could be taught at home by carers with no teaching qualifications or experience (and a parent also had to be present) and it took a year and court action to sort that one out. Still no school though.

Maybe there should be streaming by learning needs rather than test scores, so you’d still get a quiet academic high scoring set but also a set who need movement and manipulatives, a set who have lots of short variable task bases to move between during the lesson, etc.

Fat chance of that.

So apply for a scholarship in a private school

The local authorities have a legal duty to provide a suitable school. I’d like them held to account more.

This is a genuine suggestion and I'm not trying to shit stir.

If you use the same materials reach year, maybe print out 20 copies in each colour and file them in a folder with the teaching materials. Next year you can just pull out copies in the relevant colours.

Are you happy to pay more benefits because the mother has to quit her job to look after the SEN kids with no school?