Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Unflip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Unflip

1 2 3

AIBU?

Aibu to think the school should include her?

53 replies

ElasticPants · 14/12/2015 23:01

(I apologise as I've also posted in SN education, but it's very quiet there)

My 7 year old neice is at a Sen school. Once a week the class goes swimming at a local pool. The session this week is a fun swim as it is the last lesson this term. SiL has been told they can't cope with neice as she will play up. So she has to keep her at home then drop her at school once the class arrives back from swimming.

Does this happen at other schools? She has a statement and one to one. Surely the school should include her?

OP posts:

Report

strawberryandaflake · 15/12/2015 18:37

If she is putting herself or others in any kind of danger, either by dangerous action (intended or not) or by constantly taking attention away from other students who also need to be watched, then the school have the right to refuse on groups of duty of care to the others.

If it's neither of those I'd be pretty cross as swimming is very therapeutic and not enough schools do it now! Xx

honkinghaddock · 15/12/2015 15:29

That would only be acceptable if it had been explained to the child in advance that this would be the consequence of her actions and if her parents had been informed of this too. The fact that they expect her mother to keep her home instead speaks volumes about the school.

SoupDragon · 15/12/2015 14:32

I would fully expect a child of mine to be excluded from a session at the pool that involved inflatables if their prior behaviour had resulted in incidents that were a danger to themselves and others. The OP said there had been previous incidents and that the ban was to do with behaviour.

Shakirasma · 15/12/2015 14:23

There seems to be an assumption here that the child has no control over her behaviour. That actually is a disservice to people with LD's, many of whom work very hard to learn appropriate behaviours just as mainstream children do.

The OP has not said that it is the child's disability that is preventing her from attending, its a special school after all. it's a concern that she will play up and make the situation unsafe. That implies to me that this decision has come about following direct incidents of dangerous or uncooperative behaviour at the pool over recent weeks. Why on Earth should the rest of the class miss out on their treat because of one child?

Anotherusername1 · 15/12/2015 14:01

why should the rest of the class miss out on a fun lesson because one pupil can't cope with it?

Why should she suffer unlawful discrimination because the school/pool won't make reasonable adjustments? Assuming the class lasts 30 minutes, they could do 20 minutes normal swimming, she gets out, they do some fun stuff at the end. I seriously can't see the issue. They're still going swimming. I'd take your point if the whole class had to stay at school.

honkinghaddock · 15/12/2015 13:52

They have removed a regular part of the child's curriculum and replaced it with something she cannot do. I think that is at least a questionable thing to do. If they had provided something else fun for her it is probably reasonable but they haven't done that.

whois · 15/12/2015 12:55

Another, why should the rest of the class miss out on a fun lesson because one pupil can't cope with it? Quite apart from being extremely unfair, that's the sort of decision which (rightly or wrongly) leads to a negative perception of disabled people.

Quite.

bustraintram · 15/12/2015 12:18

Another, why should the rest of the class miss out on a fun lesson because one pupil can't cope with it? Quite apart from being extremely unfair, that's the sort of decision which (rightly or wrongly) leads to a negative perception of disabled people.

Anotherusername1 · 15/12/2015 11:01

Is it possible that the pool has said that it cannot accommodate her needs? So it's not coming from the school but from the pool itself? Just a thought.

It is a legal requirement to make reasonable adjustments to deal with disabilities, but the clue is in the word reasonable. However, in this case I would have thought a reasonable adjustment was to have a normal lesson rather than an end of term fun lesson if she's generally ok in the normal lessons. The other kids don't really miss out, they still get their lesson and maybe they can have a relay race at the end while she gets changed a bit early for example.

MidniteScribbler · 15/12/2015 10:31

Swimming is a requirement here (I'm not in the UK), but due to legislated supervision numbers we're often shuffling around to make sure things are covered. We have a pool on-site but we use external swim school teachers to run the classes, and so we need to make sure that any students who need extra support have a teacher who not only is a confident swimmer, has a life saving certificate, and is able to work with that child. Believe it or not, it's not always an easy puzzle to put together.

Toffeelatteplease · 15/12/2015 09:14

I stand correctted but I would not be impressed in the slightest

Shakirasma · 15/12/2015 08:27

I have a child at a special school and I am also a parent governer there.

It is absolutely NOT unreasonable for your DN to be excluded from swimming for a session which has been assessed as too dangerous for her to attend. Safety of the children, both her and others, will always take priority over any other need.

However it is very unreasonable for her to be excluded from school for the duration of the session. She must be accommodated in school, and the school is acting unlawfully by saying she can't come in.

SoupDragon · 15/12/2015 08:18

Isn't swimming part of ks2 curriculum?

I don't think it is any more. DCs primary haven't done it for a few years now. They offer it to poor or non-swimmers but that is it - it's not a whole year activity like it was when DS1 and 2 were in Y5.

honkinghaddock · 15/12/2015 08:15

It is reasonable for them to not allow to take part in an activity where they cannot keep her safe. It is questionable why they are doing this activity rather than the usual swimming session which she would be able to take part. It is unacceptable that they are asking her to stay home.

thelouise · 15/12/2015 08:11

The school are being very unreasonable to ask your sister to keep the little girl at home. Whether they are unreasonable for not taking her swimming may be a different matter. It depends on the level of risk. The school need to accommodate DN with a different but equally fun activity if she would be an undermanaged danger to herself.

ohtheholidays · 15/12/2015 07:56

The best thing to do would be for your SIL to find out why exactly your niece is being excluded from swimming with her class.

We have 2DC(we have 5DC)that are registered disabled,they're both autistic and they've always got to go swimming with they're schools and they're both in mainstream school,so not schools that are specifically set up for children with extra needs.

Whatsinaname2011 · 15/12/2015 07:52

It makes a difference if it's a state or private school

PrincessHairyMclary · 15/12/2015 07:39

So she doesn't miss out could your SIL or you offer to go to support your DN?

Iwonderwhy123 · 15/12/2015 07:39

They may have taken the decision to stop her being a danger to herself or others. Even with a 1-1 a 7 year old with behaviour issues in the pool can be difficult.
But I do think she should be going in to school at normal time to do something fun there instead.

MrsBobDylan · 15/12/2015 07:36

My son is at a SN school and is 'excluded' from the school play-it's really not his thing and makes him very upset and physical.

However, I would be very unhappy is he had to come home while it was on and expect other provision to be made for him

I think your nice should be able to stay at school. The only other possibility is that they have excluded her for the day because of bad behaviour? My son's school do that on occasion when they think the child can make the link between their actions and school consequences or if a child's behaviour has so deteriorated they need time to make adjustments so they can return to school safely.

Shockers · 15/12/2015 07:36

The DN is KS1, I believe.

Shockers · 15/12/2015 07:35

I suspect that they've asked your SIL to keep her at home so that she doesn't see her class trooping off to the pool without her.

Some children can't regulate their behaviour when in a different, or exciting scenario. In a pool situation, this could be really dangerous/frightening for the other children.

It sounds like they're just trying to manage a tricky situation the best way they can.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

LIZS · 15/12/2015 07:31

Isn't swimming part of ks2 curriculum? Does she attend normal swimming lessons and it is just this session from which she is being excluded. Could there not also be an area for more structured swimming/games, or just have the floats etc out at the end of a lesson. It doesn't sound as if the school is trying very hard to accommodate your dn.

SoupDragon · 15/12/2015 07:24

I suspect it it still not legal to exclude a child from an aspect of the curriculum.

I don't think Swimming is part of the curriculum.

I do agree that if she can not go to the swim session because of her safety and that of the other children, she should be in school doing another activity.

Witchend · 15/12/2015 07:17

That is easier for her to cope with not going. Most children would get upset at being left behind if the others are going out.

Unflip

1 2 3

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.