Daughter being excluded from prom

And where is the research stating that depriving kids of social opportunities enhances their compliance?

@Warmlight1actually most students do manage to behave. Most students make the occasional mistake but maintain high levels of behaviour. The vast majority of students don’t claim to need the toilet and then walk round school. The majority are impacted by the few who can’t be trusted.

The majority end up having prom and other treats cancelled because a few students can’t behave and their parents (and others) insist this is ok and the students are poor, misunderstood darlings who just need more time, more effort, more everything. And the vast majority of hard working well behaved students have the prom cancelled like you suggested.

That's the point, 90% of kids do what you want, when you want them to. The 10% that don't, get no prom.

Must apply to any pupil who does anything without permission
That's a very small.prom.

Leaving the classroom without permission is absconding.

You can't trust that individual at all.

Unless she's literally absconding - which would not be described as going to the toilet- that has literally nothing to do with Safety at the prom. They aren't telling mum she's at risk of disappearing from the prom. They are saying she doesn't have sufficient points. It appears to be being used as a sanction in hindsight.

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.

The very worst student social event I ever attended in 35 years of teaching was a sixth form event from a private school…

So much bigging up and expectations now. Our leavers ball - held in '89 at the end of UVI - was just a dance held in the school gym hall, with a simple buffet. The DJ might have been one of the teachers or parents for all I remember. All girls school but the boys from our "brother" school were invited. I didn't have a "date", but nor did lots of other girls so I seem to recall that we just danced in a group or something. Gowns were probably from River Island or something so nothing stupidly expensive. Nobody was excluded, but it was a private school, and we were all 18 or nearly 19, so we knew how to behave. It was just a rather muted affair, nice though.

@Seagullsandsausagerolls i agree attendance shouldn’t play a part but it hasn’t in this instance. It’s behaviour only and the OP has consistently been vague about the exact actions of her DD.

It's not a new thing. Back in the mid 90s we didn't have prom but our school ran a day trip in your last year, it became a thing of legend in school, a rite of passage it was one of those things that was looked forward to since first year of school. I didn't get going and to this day I still am gutted.

I didn't have enough behavioural points either they were made of various things including attendance, results and uniform. I was a good child a rule follower I was a prefect, student librarian, mentor but I didn't get enough points and was expected to stay behind at school. My crime was that my dad died and a few weeks later I ended up having major spinal surgery. No exceptions, no trip. At a time when I could have done with a treat as much if not more than the rest of my year I was blocked from it (my mum kept me at home and we did our own thing nice lunch, ice cream etc) Ever since I hated this sort of crap.

It’s a safety issue because it means she wandered off without permission. Often students who say they want the toilet and wander off are not, in fact, going to the toilet. They are just wandering. In a public setting that’s a safeguarding issue (see for eg the thread a week or so ago about a child taken out of class by two other children).

It's worth remembering that OP was very insistent her behaviour would be fine at prom, but then we've all heard "I'll behave if you let me have what I want" before, and when they don't that somehow becomes the school's fault too

@Dozer
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-77268-y
Permissive parenting (no rules) is a significant cause of anxiety in adolescents. Obviously more complicated than that other factors involved, this is one study the confirms other studies that firm but fair parenting is the most successful.

The point being following rules helps children and adolescents. Moving the boundaries can lead to anxiety. The school made the rules clear to all the students they need to enforce the rules to help all the students develop.

It’s about trust. If she uses going to the toilet as an excuse to wander around in school and lots of children do. If in the past she disobeyed minor rules and pushed boundaries can she be trusted at a prom? If a student has a certain number of behaviour points this indicates the student consistently does not follow instructions.
At prom a high stress, high emotion evening, teachers need to be able to trust the students. Saying things like she can go to the toilet at prom, misses the point that she may decide to go for a look around the hotel - she’s only looking. However, massive safeguarding as who else is in the hotel?
With young people it is very rarely as simple as “she was only….”

It's not a safety issue in a prom. She's allowed to go to the toilet during a prom. But- yes- literally anything else could be true.

But in the long run the government saves as I assume you are raising a capable well behaved child that the school couldn't so the child will be able to complete their education and get a full time job and you will to as this wouldn't of happened if your child stayed in school as you said they where traumatised from school.

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

"We can not put the blame at families and allow further reduction in support"

The problem is that the level of support is unaffordable right now and getting more so every year.

People expect Rolls Royce service standards at bargain basement prices. This country is in economic decline and cannot afford it so further "reductions in support" are inevitable

I absolutely agree. We won’t be affected by the changes in the White Paper - hell would freeze over before my sons EHCP is removed.

But it will fail, and it will make the situation in mainstream school much, much worse. That won’t be the school’s fault, they’ll be struggling to manage more children who aren’t able to manage in mainstream, and have even less resource available to them to do that.

I feel sorry for both, in truth. The families who’ll be forced to EHE or send their children somewhere unsuitable, and the staff that are already struggling with the lack of SENd provision being put in an even tougher position.

I think education staff will leave the profession in droves.

I know it's the fault if the LA and many teachers hands are tied. But this is going to get even worse with the planned changes

We can not put the blame at families and allow further reduction in support

Well this is what we did when school trauma was leading to self harm. Child is thriving but the damaged school caused will be lifelong. School and LA refused to support SEN needs and we paid the price.

I had to give up work to home ed, so that's an income down at home, I actually liked my career as was great at it. So now not only is the government down my tax, we have to claim benefits.
So the system is not actually saving money of school support costs the costs to the country, the child and to families are higher than actually getting education right in the first place

I’m a former SENd teacher; and a SENd parent.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that the problems my son had in his initial mainstream setting aren’t the fault of individual teachers or senior leaders, it’s the fault of LAs putting kids in schools they don’t belong in, and then chronically underfunding them once they’re there.

Most teachers want the absolute best for the children, but can’t provide it because the resources aren’t there.

They’re not responsible for making sure they are - the government is.

In order for SEN kids to get what they need in education then there would need to be wholesale change in many/most/all schools. I have 4 children in my class (mainstream primary) who are dysregulated through noise and the fact there are 29 others in class alongside them. One child’s stim is another child’s sensory overload. Those children would benefit being in a much smaller class setting but there are no funds (or space) for that. And is that even inclusion?

That’s just one example. There are so many other needs, that I said on another thread that I find myself going home most days completely despondent over it.

They're your kids if you think the school is failing them take them out and home educate them, then see who the actual problem is.