AIBU to think not every school issue should be labelled SEN?

Absolutely agree that classrooms are too chaotic, my daughter has children who shout, swear and throw chairs in her class, how in earth is she supossed to learn when has to be on high alert for flying chairs! The benchmarks for inclusion should be

• is this the best setting for this child
• once all reasonable adjustments have been implemented, is educating this child in this classroom conducive to other children's education and wellbeing.

If the answers aren't yes to both, then an alternative setting needs to be found (I know this is easier said than done).

There are a huge number in the NEET figures who can’t find work, not that they can’t or don’t want to work.

Schools just seem to be drowning in general.

TBH I am sick of arguing about whether it's SEN or not, I just think education in general needs more resources, and probably a massive restructure as well, to handle things better. It doesn't really matter whether you call it SEN. The only purpose of that as a label is to make it clear that there are some children who need more resources and allow for clear allocation of those resources. Whether or not an issue is parenting, background, different biology, medical needs, personality, different learning needs, trauma, learnt behaviour, stress, overload, whatever it is, you cannot disagree that some children need a disproportionate amount of adult input compared with other children in schools. They just do. They always have, probably always will. In any case that is the state of things now, and it won't evaporate overnight. Arguably this is not the children's fault, no matter how much of a shit any particular child might be.

You can't (or, OK, arguably: you shouldn't) just ignore disruptive children or non-achieving children or non-compliant children or kick them out or abandon them. They need to be able to access education just like everybody else. Ideally, we want them to have the best possible chance to become productive and/or prosocial members of society and/or reduce the chance of them becoming adults who cause harm in society. Surely everyone can agree on that, even if you do believe that some children are less deserving of an education than others.

It doesn't matter particularly whether this means that we actually fix the idea of inclusion or whether we build more alternative provision, whether we call it behaviour or SEN or SEMH or ALN or ND. Some proportion of the school-aged population will always require more resources than others because everybody is not the same. How do you allocate resources so that it is fair to all? That is the question, the rest of it is noise.

But this is exactly what I mean. Why do they need a tutor? Why not let them be the level they are? I get that maths gcse is a pathway but maybe they need to do something else, explore other talents

It's a pathway to many things, not just academic A levels. If they don't pass it first time then they will just have to take it again anyway so why not see if a tutor helps?

My son is only Year 6 but also has a maths tutor. I know he's behind in Maths so he's getting some extra support. Maybe he'll always struggle with maths and be behind but if he has the potential to get back to a standard level, why wouldn't I make sure he's supported if I can?

@BertieBotts so magic up trained education support staff and pay them with buttons?

Not enough people want the TA jobs available now, do you? Would you work for those wages under those conditions?

Everyone wants top notch services without wanting to pay any more tax or even any tax at all. Everyone wants full staff for their needs but it’s someone else who has to do the jobs.

The SEN hubs being provided are at least a space for children finding a classroom overwhelming to go. Which might allow some space for them to regulate and allow the rest of the class to continue. Which might help a bit.

Presumably many can buy their own as adults. Mine now use noise cancelling headphones. As adults Access to work exists. Reasonable adjustments exist. Why are we doing children a disservice to give them something that makes their day manageable and which allows them to access school and the wiser community?

Because most employers expect passes in English, Maths and Science. And in ds's case (adhd), he wants to pursue an active career - sports teacher, physio, RAF PTI, that kind of thing. Not academically gifted but bright, excels at Sports, but attaining less than his MTGs in core subjects (demonstrated ability of getting 6s and 7s, attaining only 4s).

Problem is that despite his actual ability being higher than his current predicted grades, the school are beginning to settle on putting him in for foundation papers, on which the highest grade he can achieve is a 5, so he has a capped ceiling. His 6th form require a 6 in Science for him to continue on his chosen pathway (because biology is essential). So he feels that his aspirations are already thwarted.

In these circumstances, I'm also paying a tutor to help improve his grades in maths and science so he can study at 6th form for his chosen path. We're desperately trying to give him options, but avenues are still closed to him that others take for granted. And then people wonder why DLA is claimed. Well, in most cases it's to give children the same opportunities that others take for granted.

Is it? Or have we been reducing (relative to inflation etc) the amount of resources available to schools/teachers/etc over decades and wondering why it's not actually possible to meet needs with fewer resources?

I also think in the past society did just consider it acceptable to not meet a proportion of children's educational needs, whether for disability related reasons, what was seen as a lack of intelligence, or behavioural reasons/lack of bothering to follow up on children who truanted or were disengaged in class.

Now as a society we have decided that was the wrong approach, which I agree with, but seem to assume that these pupils ought to be able to get by with the same amount of resource as other pupils, which is not realistic.

Who is we?

Yet another post written by ChatGpt.

@BertieBotts It looks like less money, but it’s not. LAs used to mostly control Sen money. We ran SEN centres, peripatetic teachers, outreach workers from special schools, budgets for teaching assistants when dc didn’t have a “statement” and many other services for SEN pupils. This money has now been delegated to schools. They have it in their budgets AND pp money which might also be attached to a Sen dc. They do have money but it’s how they choose to spend it.

When I worked in this field, schools had a head and two deputies. Even at a 1300 place school. There were no assistant heads or executive heads. Schools really do have some choice in spending budgets and there’s no denying way more dc are “diagnosed” with sen now. Some of that is very dubious. Our Ed Psychs did the “diagnosis” back then with doctors and other professionals as necessary. We hardly saw a private Ed psych report and when we did they were not very accurate. Now it’s a huge industry and they find something SEN about every child they see.

It’s grown like topsy and this also explains why some schools struggle.

I totally get why people get maths tutors. Of course! But what I mean is - why do we expect this as a society? This is what creates the stress and anxiety - trying to make all kids the same, to tick the same boxes. No shade on parents - we do what we can to fit the society we are in. It’s a bold brave parent to step out of that. Some kids would be happier working on a family farm but weren’t born into that life. School can only offer so much.

There was a good section about this on channel 4 news last night.

Because knowing maths to a certain level by the end of GCSE's is a basic skill for kids who are capable? It doesn't mean I think that kids are all the same but I don't think it would be brave or bold of me to know that my child is behind in maths and not provide him with any support.

Maybe I'm still not understanding.

And for people saying the adult world doesn't work like that - it kind of does?

Adults do get some measure of choice over things like where they live, who they live with, what job they want to do, what they eat, what clothes they wear, what they spend their money on, what their spend their free time doing.

You don't need a wobble cushion if you have a job where you're up and moving around every day. Lots of jobs are like that - I personally would hate it, I much prefer a desk job where I can sit still. But that would be someone else's worst nightmare.

You don't need ear defenders if you work from home without 32 other people in the room and 6 classrooms down the hall each with another 33 people in them. Or in another quiet environment like a small office.

But also plenty of adults buy earpods or headphones with active noise cancellation, or earplugs, so if you do want ear defenders, you can totally have them, nobody minds. In some jobs e.g. with heavy machinery they are even provided (or you have to provide your own) as PPE.

Ear defenders is a weird thing to get wound up about because that is an accommodation which CAN help people adapt to everyday life. But everyday life for a lot of adults won't look much like being at school, so learning to adapt to school life is a bit of a red herring in some cases.

But what's your solution? If they have reasonable adjustments they have a recognised disability under the equality act. Would you rather they were sat at home on benefits? Then people complain about that too.

Plus children aren't adults. Why are we expecting children to behave like adults, think like adults, have the emotional maturity of adults? They will learn to manage many of their challenges over time as we teach them and as they mature.

I mean TBF I don't actually know if it's less or not. I suspect it is less, because that would fit the general theme of cuts and austerity, and I have also seen it repeated (unsure if true) that inclusion was meant to be a cost cutting measure on one level, but I am totally willing to be told otherwise. I can't make sense of any figures I've managed to find by googling - there is % of GDP but I don't know what that means in real terms. You can't really take budget amounts and say because inflation and population numbers will change what the level of need actually is. There's also all the stuff about school buildings being poorly maintained (ie, having had less spent on them which was perhaps not a long term view) so needing expensive repairs and all the RAAC/asbestos hazards in recent years not to mention the effects of the pandemic. It also gets confusing because higher education is included in education spending figures, which makes sense but I think clouds the question of whether we are allocating enough to ensure every child gets a basic education/is given the best chance to succeed.

I know the current reforms are increasing budgets which is a good thing, but as you say, it's also about how money is spent, not just looking at figures. Throwing money at a problem doesn't always help if there is an endless hole for it to drain away into. Sometimes centralised services can use money in a more efficient way, sometimes that is bloat and it makes more sense for each organisation to control their own money, but sometimes that leads to badly informed decisions or duplication.

Some people are always going to need accommodations to be able to either access education or work.

That doesn't explain why you're expecting young children to manage the same as adults at uni might and so what If they come to uni with accommodations. If they're getting them they're obviously covered by the equality act. If they can't manage due to disabilities they're not just going to outgrow them.

YY exactly. We do not worry that younger children cannot get themselves independently to and from school. We arrange things so that parents can bring them and pick them up, such as having breakfast/ASC, perhaps school bus services or "walking buses" or carpool arrangements, even taxis in some cases.

It is not a problem that children in reception cannot yet read or write very much. We read to them (which is also an important skill) and do lots of learning through play. The curriculum is adapted to the (normal) underdeveloped skills of the children. We understand that later in school, they will be able to read and write to a degree that they can use these skills as part of their independent study.

Most of the time when children in primary school are given homework, particularly in KS1, this is communicated directly to parents, not only to the children themselves (as it usually is in secondary school). Again this is an adaptation based on their developmental level. We do not worry that if they can't keep track of their homework aged 7 that they will never be able to organise themselves or say that nobody will be sending a reminder home for them. In fact many adult organisation type things (bills, registration for things etc) do come with reminders before a consequence is triggered.

Some of these things have changed over time as our understanding of child development has changed BTW. I'm sure there is space for the model of education we have now to change and flex into the future as we understand better how to support children in learning.