Daughter being excluded from prom

Well bringing knives in would be a red line because that is a clear risk in a prom situation.
'Regularly disrupted' the op was talking about more like historic stuff. Uniform toilet other that sort of thing and it having resolved. .
So why not deal with the disruption through the usual routes which are more immediate and therefore likely to be more effective?
Kids need timely responses. By the time the prom sanction is applied they've forgotten why they exited the classroom 6 months ago- - were disruptive- they've even forgotten they did it. And that's as it should be they move on from year to year.
I feel like that as a sanction at that stage is about the teaching staff and senior leadership. It's got no benefit for the kid. It can only alienate.

Normalised for 1-2% of children who have regularly disrupted the education experience of others. I have no issue with that. Transition event or not, if you've routinely got it wrong in school, the line is there that you can't go to prom.

Of course there are other ways to boundary children through school. Although I have had one example of a child who brought a knife to exams, can't PEX at that point but they were banned from prom.

In the olden days we had grammar schools for kids who wanted to learn and get on in life. I was a grammar school girl. We didn't have the behaviour issues that I read about in today's schools. The top 25% of kids went to grammar school. I think grammar schools should be brought back in order to help those academic kids who want to learn and do well. My proviso would be that maybe 35-40% of kids should go to grammar.
The less academic kids went to secondary modern school. They were not forced to do 8 academic subjects and take exams. They focussed on more practical subjects such as woodwork and cookery. In today's society they would do DT , art, PE and computer studies; together with English and Maths. They didn't have anxiety and other mental health issues. They didn't go to university as so many less able kids do today.
The kids who were persistently trouble - taking knives to school, throwing chairs, assaulting other students, drug dealing, stealing - went to borstal. They were removed from the society of decent kids who just wanted to get on with life.
The kids who couldn't cope with everyday life were sent to special school or remedial school. From my reading of mumsnet it appears that over 25% of today's kids fall into the special school category. They all have special needs and need extra help. They are incapable of progressing at even secondary modern level. Many of them have mental health issues because they are unable to cope with actually going to school and becoming part of society.
It is too much to expect schools and teachers to deal with all these 4 categories in one large school, often in the same lesson. I think schools are too big anyway. Smaller, more specialised schools are the answer.

There's someone somewhere on this thread very scathingly accusing me of wanting to deprive ' (the good') kids of social interaction.
So what's the point of the prom?
Is it a reward like in a workplace?
My view is that because of its significance at the end/ change of many kids school life it's a unique transition event. Transitions require resources to get them right.
It's become a cultural norm because schools have built it up into that. It's now part of the ending for many.
I've no problem with incentives as a concept
But because the prom is a social event that most kids expect and want to go to and it's also a key transition thing, using exclusion from it as a sanction is a particularly nasty development. I'm really surprised if that's become normalised. It's often going to be their last memory of school. It's not something I feel has been properly thought through at a macro level.
Like I said if there's a real safety issue where a kid's unmanageable in that situation there should be specific risk assessment. It's won't be a surprise by that stage.
People on here are talking as if they were unable to boundary kids before proms came along. Thats nonsense.

Not offering a child a ticket to a prom is not "traumatic" it's "disappointing".

As someone who has PTSD, I do think the deflation of what is required to constitute "trauma" is deeply offensive to those who have genuinely experienced traumatic experiences and plays straight into the hands of people who would totally defund SEND. I would suggest you don't add fuel to their fire.

It is the opposite, they're offering a positive consequence for people who do comply.

Read up about the "ABC model" for behaviour change. I think the author is Braksick.

I don't think mainstream is working with 1 teacher to 30 pupils especially once the school /LA have failed to support for years.

However, I also feel that if support is right in the early days there is less support needed later in the school journey but what happens is early support isn't put in place and by the time a pupil gets to secondary the support needs are extensive

1 example would be
Child has just started in reception, they are anxious about being told off which causes them to shut down and not process the instructions. They haven't understood what is expected of them and they have got it wrong. Teacher gets cross. Child is even more scared of being told off.
They don't understand their numbers like all their peers. The teacher needs to to move on to higher numbers but they don't have the basics and so the work is getting harder and they can't follow it. They are scared and the teacher keeps telling them off for not listening

At this point the parents say child is resistant in morning and getting increasingly distressed. School say they are fine in school. Child isn't fine and is exploding at home. Anything resembling school work ends in child getting so distressed.

At this point a kind and gentle TA spending some time 1:1 would likely build the child's confidence, and address the lack of understanding quite quickly. If the issue is learning difficulties this will quickly be recognised if child isn't making progress 1:1 but if it is just missed understanding the gap will quickly resolve

Either way the child gets the support they need at the time so the issues doesn't become long term and build further.

But what is normally happening is a wait and see approach. This means the school do nothing meaningful straight away. The gap gets bigger, the confidence gets further destroyed and the child becomes more resistant and scared to attend school.

The longer this goes on the more expensive and complex any useful intervention become.
Instead school and LA offer interventions that may have been helpful several years ago but now aren't even going to touch the sides.

I did as this of you earlier in the thread - don’t know if you saw it? Would be interested in your POV on this.

“Can I ask what support would look like? Particularly for AUDHD? With one class teacher and 30 pupils, half of which are SEN?”

Why is it unreasonable?

Schools run reward trips for students that get a certain number of points, why can't prom be the same?

I think in this case, the teacher is only following the rule that was established beforehand. This raises a broader question: is it reasonable to use behavior points to decide whether a student is eligible to attend prom?

I really don't see the problem with prom being used as a sanction either?

Kid misbehaves, they don't get to go to prom.

Bit like in work, you don't hit performance measure, you don't get your bonus.

If they repeatedly do it yes, this isn't from a single incident

That's exactly the point. It's not hard to do a risk assessment when it's very obvious a child can't be in that environment and nine times out of ten the parent would support that and even drive it because they want to protect and they might find ways to work with the school to.make it safer. .
The OP said the child had not accrued enough behaviour points for previous behaviour. Or something like that. It appeared the prom was being used as a sanction. That's completely different. Also its retrospective for behaviour from a year previous.

Do you honestly think a kid who has regular meltdowns and throws chairs around the classroom (despite lots of adjustments in place to support them and lots of send support, allowances made etc) should be permitted to attend prom, even though they've been warned a number of times that could be a consequence, and supported with other strategies to release their energy?

I have a secondary age kid who has a kid in his year does this. At least once a fortnight chairs get chucked in the classroom. Yes other kids have been hurt on occasion.

Should that child be allowed to prom? When there's a significant risk they'll chuck a couple of chairs, could cause actual damage in a external venue, could well hurt someone? Schools have to do risk assessments for stuff like this. The risk is too high

I also don't think a deciding factor in a child being able to work and contribute to society is if they get to go to one event or not. However, SEN children being failed for absolute years is.

The earlier and better we support children the better the outcomes.
Children needing support in yr 1 (because they are struggling to keep up with peers) but still not getting it in yr 9 are now not 6 months behind they are 8 plus years behind.
A 6 month gap is fairly easy to catch up with the right targeted support a 8 yr gap will never be made up

I'm not saying missing prom is the trauma - im saying schools and LA continuous failures in providing even the most basic of necessary support to children with SEN is one of the biggest causes in mental health difficulties and is directly caused by school.
This has long term consequences long past CSA

"You do realise that children have died due to suicide based on trauma faced at school"

I think it is an exaggeration To call someone being excluded from prom for failing to meet criteria they have previously been advised of as "trauma"

45% of SEN students leave school without having reached level 2 attainment - ie 5 GCSEs at grade 4 or above. What’s funny about that? It’s a disaster.

You do realise that children have died due to suicide based on trauma faced at school.
I hardly think the death of young people is something to giggle at.

"It will cost far more in the long run when children grow up unable to work due to lack of education and mental health issues directly related to school trauma"

"School trauma". ,😂

Non compliance in school also indicates that you cannot be trusted outside of school. The two cannot be separated. The evidence the school has from the child's behaviour is non compliance is acceptable to the child. Staff shouldn't have to put up with that at a voluntary event.

Wow

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if it increases or decreases compliance. That ship has now sailed and the OPs child can't go. The carrot was there in the first place and the OPs daughter didn't meet the bar. All the children I've ever taught who couldn't go to prom more than deserved the consequence for their actions.

Humans are social animals with social structures and rules. Most people want to "conform" to be "included" in society. OPs daughter didn't conform so is excluded from the social event.

That is a sanction for non compliance of one kind or another. As opposed to a measure around the prom which is about their safety.

So you are acknowledging that it is being used as a sanction?