maryz
I struggle to care what you think as I have been inquisitive, respectful and have thought before posting. I clearly have different opinions to some other posters but that neither means I'm wrong nor that you can be rude about them.
As the OP has perfectly politely answered / clarified some things directly in response to my posts, I hope it means she doesn't see me as treating her badly.
barelyknitted good for you.
solidgoldbrass
But do all primary children know the difference between torment and simply act inappropriately for a particular child? I'm not sure I would and would have to base it on perhaps subtle cues from the person I'm interacting with.
Chemistryhunt
I do feel concerned about your belief in "it boils down to my notion of looking after the majority. At times it makes life harder for an individual but sadly, it can't be helped. " This goes against all of the hard won rights covered by the disability discrimination laws we have in place, which are their to make sure even people with additional needs can have their basic rights met.
No it doesn't. I believe that creating environments best suited to individuals (non-inclusion) everyone will have their rights met and, rather than meeting basic rights, we'll be doing our best for all involved.
zzzzzzzz the selectiveness is based upon parents ability to pay among other things but, as I said, no entrance exam.
The gung ho attitude I was referring to was the idea that the reasonable adjustments made to allow this child to attend school (ie his calm space) were optional and could be utilised for other things (like borrowing someone's wheelchair to move rugby kit)
Based on the supposition that the person didn't need their wheelchair the whole time and was walking around when it was used. Why not? (although the link is tenuous!)
As far as the differentiation is concerned, then yes each child is differentiated for EVEN if that means a totally different set of work being set. This is because most teachers wouldn't think it was ok for part of their class to be watching while the rest were being taught
You think 20 children are each set different work? Really?
You spoke about inclusion not being the only answer for both sen, G&T and others. After reading that, I'm a little confused as to where the argument is. Because I don't think a child should have exclusive use of a room (and 10 minutes for it to be used as a changing room is fair)? Because we disagree as to where the line is draw between mainstream education being suitable (for me violence towards staff is beyond it)?
I think herecomesthepotatoes in her heart of hearts believes ALL schools should run like a public school and cannot comprehend that anyone of any worth or understanding would choose otherwise
I think that fee paying schools can learn from non-fee paying and vice versa. Twisting that into "anyone of any worth" is quite mean spirited but becoming common here because someone politely disagrees with others.
lookingAgain
I think the answer is that they do understand, frankly, they just don't care. With limited resources for state education people get "grabby
Perhaps you're right and yes, it is a zero sum game. But doesn't this notion of 'grabbiness' work both ways?
lacaelottie I haven't bitten yet!
claw but if a child is violent at school, don't they have SEN?
augusta you're very fascinated.
I'm fascinated that potatoes assumes that cerebral palsy automatically equals a wheelchair
The only two people I've properly known (as in, would call friends) with cerebral palsy needed a wheelchair. One of them is a famous comedian. The other (1st cousin) couldn't even communicate without one of those amazing computer things which he works with his eyes. We make assumptions based on past experience. It's how we learn!
I'm fascinated that she assumes funding will come from benefits and reducing unspecified bureaucracy
I haven't pretended to be running for government or have all the answers but unemployment benefit for starters. Reducing the tax burden on companies allows them to hire more staff. Tax avoidance (besides a few infamous multi-naitionals) is a drop in the ocean. The cost of bureaucracy (by which I mean showing we conform to government standards) to the company I work for was just shy of £8m last financial year.
NoHaudin
Where would you place my dd who is G&T, and has both physical disabilities and ASD and who has never been violent in her life?
Well, in a streamed education, she, I suspect and as has been proven, would benefit from being taught with G&T peers. Does she attend a grammar?
Or my ds who has ASD and mental health problems, is also very able academically and has occasionally been violent under extreme stress
That comes down to the frequency of his violence and I guess the reason that schools operate the suspension then expulsion so if it is so infrequent as to be forgiven (can't think of a better word) then the student can continue.
corythatwas
"you still have the problem of whether it's appropriate to put the bright child with brittle bones in with the bright child with a tendency to lash out unpredictably"
"I think you've missed something there, Augusta. Those are children with SN: their education (or even safety) doesn't matter in the way the education and safety of...you know... normal children do"
Who's ideas are you misrepresenting there? However, the aggressor should be kept away from the child with brittle bones. Are you arguing against that?
sleeponeday So, doesn't it make sense that G&T children should be working with their peers ie. grammar school.
merrymouse
The point of comprehensive education is that, as others have expressed on this thread, children don't all fit into a neat box labelled grammar/secondary modern/special school
That's true but unless education has unlimited funding, we need to do the best we can and try to fit children into boxes. That's the harsh reality of life. In an ideal world, every single child would benefit from a curriculum written purely for them. We cant do that but should should get as close to it as we can.