My DD was injured at school, school want a meeting, what will happen?

[CupCakeForTheBirthdayGirl]

DD is 9, in Y4.

On Friday it was my DDs birthday and I put a small cupcake in her lunchbox*.

Another girl in the class, pushed DD off the bench thing making her bang her head and meaning DD was sent home. The girl also got DDs cupcake out of her of her lunchbox and ate it.

DD has told me but this hasn't been confirmed by school or the other girl, that the girl asked DD to swap the cupcake for a chocolate bar and DD said no because the school rules are you don't share or swap food/

For context both girls have an EHCP. I am friends with the other girls mum and she will not allow the school to apply for further funding for a 1-1 at lunchtime for her child – she’s told me this several times, she thinks a TA would hold her daughter back and she doesn’t want it, she also only allows a TA in core subjects at school (English and Maths). My DD doesn’t have 1-1 at lunchtime as the only help she would need would be with packaging or cutting up (when shes on hot dinners) but the lunchtime staff are aware she needs this help and it’s part of their job description. DD does have 1-1 in wordy subjects like English, History and Geography she also has help in a small group in other subjects which is funded by her EHCP.

DD was sent home from school, and I had to take her to A+E. For context DD is the youngest in the class (not the year though, 3 classes per year) but also the smallest in the entire year. She’s the size of your average 4-year-old. DD was ok, just had a bad nose bleed and sustained a concussion, due to her medical issues she was at risk of breaking her nose, or fracturing her cheek or eyesocket so had to go to for an X-ray.

School now wants a meeting with me tomorrow to discuss “going forwards” I’m terrified, they’ve always said I co-operate and they’ve never had issues with discussing things with me. I’m worried they’re going to say DD now needs lunchtime supervision, I’ll take it if they offer it but it does seem unfair DD is going to have to be supervised because the other parent won’t allow their child to be.

It's a mainstream state primary school, cofe if it makes a difference.

*This is as per school rules before anyone says anything - policy says “Please only give 1 of cake (slice of, cupcake or 1 packet of the prepacked mini cake bars), or 1 of chocolate bar (such as a penguin or 2 finger kitkat) or 2 biscuits (2 disgestive with or without chocolate on) or 1 packet of crisps. All products including sandwich fillings must be nut, peanut and sesame seed free” – it was a small cupcake with a small amount of icing.

It sounds like you see additional support as a judgement or punishment for your child when it seems like the school are trying to keep her safe, which is their job. Given it sounds like minor injuries could be more complex for your DD, what’s your opposition to 1:1? She may not need support with the practicalities of lunch time, but may need a bit more support and supervision socially. Given how hard support is to come by I doubt they’d be offering it if it weren’t needed.

The school should be shitting themselves about what has happened on their watch!

@Jellycatspyjamas I'm not opposed to it but I don't see the need given this is only the 2nd incident thats involved another child re my DD and injuries and the first one was in Y2 and was not down to DD being pushed or bullied she literally pulled another child down when she fell, which granted isn't nice for that child but is hardly a massive red flag in terms of needing support? Surely it happens often enough with NT children.

I just feel like they're using my DD to get the support for the other child as they know I am open to it. Yes they've said they'll be hands off but that feels like a cop out.

Like I said I do like the school and trust they'll keep her safe as they always have. The HT is so so lovely and genuinely cares about every single child in the school.

I absolutely agree that they want to use you and your daughter's EHCP to gain extra funding for more staff at lunchtime. Whether this is to keep your daughter safe or to keep an eye on the other child I don't know. In a way it shouldn't matter but school are using slightly underhand methods rather than addressing the issue with the other parent.

I'm a sendco and would have said that the extra support would benefit everyone and it is something that be legitimately asked for.
I suppose the only negative is that if 1:1 at lunchtime 'for safety' is on her EHCP high schools may say they can't meet that need leading to your daughter not being able to attend with her peers which isn't ideal.

I would go back with the idea that they put in support but it isn't named on the EHCP for the above reason.
In my LA we get funding separate to the EHCP so wouldn't have to ask for more, there are 3 tiers and support at lunch wouldn't tip you into the next tier.

I would be fascinated to know what local authority changes EHCPs this easily and how the school has the power to ask for 1:1 support without evidence of need.

In my Local Authority, children who are non-verbal and self-harming don't get enough support for full time 1:1.

Unfortunately l was right about the victim blaming which is just so crap!!

So will the TA be sitting next to DD because unless they are that close, it won't prevent an incident occuring... as they won't get there quick enough.

I outright asked if it was to keep DD away from this child and they just said they can't make comment on other children and the whole classes safety had to be considered which I took to mean they're getting nowhere with the other mum so want to put it in place using DD instead.

Tell them that you don't see how a 1:1 will keep your child safe, and that you are concerned that it will reduce her independence. Also tell them that you have no interest in discussing other children, but if they need to consider the whole class's safety then surely the 1:1 is needed for the other child, and that your information is that, contrary to what they have been telling you, they don't need parental consent for changes to EHC Plans. If they insist they do, ask them to quote chapter and verse of exactly where that is set out in either statute or case law - they won't be able to.

I agree with you @CupCakeForTheBirthdayGirl .
They are using your dd to get funding to have something in place fir the other child. But they can’t tell you that!

Fwiw, it’s not unusual fir TA who are supposed to 1-1 with one child to actually work with other children etc… so I can see how they can be happy to have 1-1 for your dd and ‘because dd didn’t need help 109% of the time, we also use said TA fir other stuff’. Like supervising the other child. (Not saying that type if ‘transfer’ is right Btw)

Id be tempted to say Yes but to ask them to review the situation and see with your dd how things are going. Aka how ‘involved’ is that TA?

@BurntOutGirl This is my concern, how can they be hands off but also keep my DD safe, they won't be next to her.

@Quiverer I will be telling them this although I can't find anything on the internet about who has to agree to the support. All I can find is "All involved have to agree" so it could be they're interpruting that to mean parents to? They'd have a mind field with us though if they have to get parents involved as ExH doesn't even know DD has an EHCP let alone agree, so I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms - I'm resident parent though and do all school runs etc. so if it came to it I'd just go back to court with ExH over it.

@MagicBullet I have no issue with the TA being used generally, DDs TA does small group work with her in subjects like Maths where she needs support but a lot less than say English or History, there's also a TA "on hand" in PE to help her or take her out if she's a bit poorly or upset or just can't do it, but said TA will work in groups or will partner up with another child in the class (odd number of children in the class) if DD is ok. I have absolutely no problem with this as it's giving DD her independence, I just can't see how lunchtime support will benefit her in the same way.

Slightly different as it’s an adult, but my df has dementia and a 24/7 1:1 in his nursing home. Social services were very cautious about recommending this because it can be seen to be too restrictive. I would have thought it was the same with your dd- surely there is a balance to be struck between keeping your dd safe and allowing her some independence? It doesn’t sound like the potential benefit here outweighs the negatives. Especially when this particular incident could have also been avoided by them better managing the other child’s behaviour.

Hey OP sounds to me like the school are trying to get around the issue of the other parent not agreeing a 1:1 for their child... My daughter has a condition that makes her considerably smaller than children her age on a par with your daughter's size difference to others and I don't think I'd be on board with this plan as it's singling your child out for a need that she doesn't have, particularly if accidents and physical issues at school are rare like you say. I'd gather my thoughts and request a follow up meeting.

Would it be possible to simply request that this girl isn't allowed to sit at the same table as your daughter? I did this after a very serious allergy related incident with my DD and the school agreed and made sure the child didn't sit at the same table.

@LaughingLemur They don't have seperate tables, they're like fold down ones that come out at lunch into the hall and then are put away again. They use 1 for each class with the benches they use for assemblies/worship under them for them to sit on, so the whole class sits together, they don't have to but tend to sit in the same places everyday. Any child with an allergy has a red lunch tray or a red sticker on their lunchbox (DD has some allergies to food to) and then there's a folder with all the children who have allergies in and what with photos of the children. DD sits on the end of the bench due to her fall risk (so she falls sideways into her arms/knees rather than backwards and hits her head).

She was pushed backwards off the bench so the girl was on the opposite bench. Will ask about seating and if DD can be put somewhere else but really the other girl needs 1-1 at lunchtime not my DD, as it's not just my DD who gets targeted by this girl.

@Wildlyboring I agree, and I think I need to raise it again with school that I'm not happy with it.

Accidents aren't rare, they happen almost daily, but those involving another child either directly or indirectly are rare. The most common accident for DD is a fall, usually in the classroom but occasionally on the playground or in the hall.

@ImNotAsThinkAsYouDrunkIAm Thank you that's useful to know that even in those situations 1-1 can stifle indepence. I think we have a good balance right now, 1-1 permantly by her side in subjects like English/History/Geography where she needs it and only works with her, then in Maths/Science/Similar TA works with her in a group, which helps her socially but also helps her classmates so they do get the benefit of the TA to. She doesn't have TA at all in Music, or Art or Forest School because the way they're planned DD should be independent then.

In PE TA is about to help with changing, and to support DD if she needs it but hangs back and works with others when DD doesn't need it. Even at Sports Day last week TA was on the field but spent most of the time cheering DD on from the sideline and only stepped in when needed.

I like what we have and I was hoping by secondary age DD would have less 1-1 TA and more group support as DD learns to work around her conditions.

I think I've got my thoughts straight that I don't want this, it's not for DDs benefit when the only lunchtime help she needs she already gets from the lunchtime supervisors.

I would insist that this other girl sits nowhere near your daughter in future so that the potential of food swapping/pushing is limited. I would take the 1:1 offer at lunchtime so long as the support is non intrusive and she only intervenes if your daughter is in potential physical danger ie near this girl. As far as your daughter is concerned she is just another general dinner lady. The school should be telling the other child’s mother that if she won’t agree to supervision at lunchtime then she needs to go home for lunch. The school should be putting the support in at lunchtime if this other girl needs it whether the parents agree to funding or not.

Another update

Had our second meeting today. I made all the points here about 1-1 not being appropriate, I asked for more conclusive evidence and details of incidences which point to DD needing it. Her needing help with packaging and cutting food up while unusual in Y4 doesn't mean she needs a TA with her for all of lunch. I said all the accidents they mentioned last time at school all involved only DD apart from the 1 incident where she pulled another child down with her when she fell over. I asked why they felt DD needed 1-1 when it's been 2 incidences involving another child, 1 of which wasn't anything to do with DD or her conditions, and the other has not been repeated due to safeguards put in place then. I asked how 1-1 would protect DD from other children while also not prevent her from being included socially and being able to get involved with things.

I also pointed out the most recent reports from Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy, who both have said that DD needs to start working on her independence ready for secondary school. OT wrote in their report that they felt DDs EHCP covered enough hours 1-1 and small group work and that social times such as lunchtimes DD doesn't need 1-1. SALT said DDs speech will only improve if she is given chance to mix with her peers "independent of adult input" and although I do clubs and activities outside of school with DD she should have that opportunity within school time as well - I said I was happy with the level of support DD recieves, and I am seeing improvement in her fine motor and speech, and I was worried a lunchtime 1-1 could hamper or even harm that improvement. So I didn't consent to lunchtime 1-1.

Both HT and class teacher looked a bit flustered and said something about needing a chat together. They went off and then came back a few minutes later. They really put the pressure on me to agree. So I said I'd go away and discuss it with OT and SALT then come back to them.

Physio is also in school later this week, so I will discuss it with him too.

I feel like they're blaming DD because they can. It just feels relentless.

DD sits on the end of the bench due to her fall risk (so she falls sideways into her arms/knees rather than backwards and hits her head).

Surely she needs to be in a chair with arms to prevent her falling either way?

When they put pressure on you to agree to the 1:1, what reasons did they give? And why can't they apply for a 1:1 for the other child? As noted upthread, they don't have to have the parents' permission.

@Quiverer Because from my understanding its a bench type thing that folds into the table, they're not seperate. I will discuss that though as it'd be a big help to DD, she has a chair with arms in the classroom.

@Quiverer In reply to the pressure comment, they kept repeating they thought it was in DDs best interests to have lunchtime 1-1.

I didn't mention the other child or that they don't need permission. I wonder if it's a funding thing though, if the other parent removes their child then the school loses it's funding. Hence putting the pressure on me, as I've said repeatedly I am generally happy with the school - it's not perfect but I don't think any school is, and they are more small niggles (before this incident anyway) rather than anything major that makes me think I need to remove her.

So another injury today at lunchtime from the same child.

Not as serious this time, DD was sat on a bench on the playground eating her packed lunch and this girl threw a bottle in DDs general direction. It hit DD and shes got a scratch on her nose where her glasses pushed into her but she's ok and stayed at school for it.

Teacher just said "This is what we were talking about yesterday, she needs 1-1"

I think I'd push back at this point.

'My child doesn't need 1-1. She is getting hurt due to ChildB. Maybe it is ChildB who needs the extra supervision.'

Your daughter sustained a head injury. It would be weird if they didn’t want a meeting with you.

Am not sure how having a 1 to 1 could have prevented the most recent incident - would they be expected to dive in front of flying objects. It could happen with the 1 to 1 present - these things happen so quickly. I would push that your child needs the independence for secondary school, it is so important. I would continue to push back on this.

This. And ask them to explain how they think a 1:1 would have protected her from a flying bottle (are they proposing to hire a superhero?). Or why your daughter needs protecting from flying bottles but other children don’t. Or is every child going to have a superhero buddy ready to dive out in front of flying bottles?