AIBU to think no one has come out of this looking great?

[ilostdoryintheocean]

Really need help. DS is 11, and has been excluded for swearing at a member of staff. I don't condone his actions AT ALL - but I have been concerned about this TA for a while and I feel awful as I feel I should have spoken up for him earlier.

So here is the situation, DS has had a lot of early childhood trauma and he shows many autistic traits but has not been formally diagnosed. He colours in as a way of calming himself down but knows he needs to stop colouring and start work when the teacher has finished talking. Sometimes he refuses. The teacher then sends him outside to calm down (it's pointless confronting him.) The teacher has been really good with him.

The TA hates his colouring and shouts at him to stop. He then shouts back. It then turns into a shouting match. On Friday he told her to fuck off and that her breath stank. she is understandably furious but AIBU to wish she'd just back off him a bit, she really does seem to have it in for him a bit?

Italiangreyhound: The TA needs to be well-managed, including having access to the lesson plan and any adjustments made for individuals. That goes without saying. Pointing it out if she hasn't adhered to that is just part of managing her, it's not a 'consequence'. However, unless the adjustments have been agreed at a whole-school level, or she repeatedly ignores reasonable instructions from the teacher in terms of carrying out her role, she hasn't 'done something wrong' as such. She has just not for everything right and we all do that at work all the time, it's not a moral failing. Lots of people are acting like she should be tarred and feathered. Without an IEP for the child in question the school wouldn't have a leg to stand on for any disciplinary action whatsoever.

Italiangreyhound: Re. shouting, it is impossible to say from here. I don't know the child, I don't know what level of control he has or how loudly he was shouted at. I am not being disingenuous about that. Unless he has it on his IEP that instructions should always be delivered in a ca tone (or similar) then what might 'set him off' and the extent to which he is responsible for his own response are always going to be subjective judgements.

*calm

I never suggested adults shouldn't raise their voice in an educational setting.

I said in most workplaces the TA woukd nt get away with shouting in the face of her juniors. So I don't believe because it's adult and pupil we should accept the same behaviours.

Op Ds needs to learn better stategies for dealing with this situation and the TA needs to learn alongside this an appropriate way for using her position of authority to get what she wants.

I'm shocked that people think exclusion is harsh. In every school I've ever worked in swearing at an adult results in immediate fixed term exclusion. You do need to get a diagnosis though OP so your son can get more support.

youarenotkiddingme: But again, it's far from established that she 'shouted in his face' rather than raised her voice. That language is both emotive and subjective, implying an aggression that I don't think has been demonstrated. If she 'shouted in his face' then I would agree that there are better ways to manage behaviour.

lellio, the point is that schools should not have a blanket rule that applies regardless of disability and special needs.

WouldHave: I'm sure they don't. The OP's child doesn't have a recognised disability or SN. That's not disputed.

The op says the teacher told her the ta got up into the child's face. (I'm sure I read that!)

I'm not excusing the swearing. It's not ok. Ive also been the parent who's had a child excluded 6 times for swearing and on the opposite side teach in an educational role.

What I'm saying is that lessons need to be learnt on both sides. Imwas responding mainly to posters who think just saying "don't swear" or you'll get excluded is the answer.

I wish it was but that isn't reality.

We don't know that he doesn't have a recognised disability, because it seems to be accepted that he is suffering from the effects of early childhood trauma which can be disabling in itself. Further, children need to be dealt with as individuals; a school that decides you must treat a child with known autistic traits in exactly the same way as NT children just because he hasn't yet been diagnosed is a bad school. Especially when it is the school's staff member's poor practice which has caused a totally avoidable problem.

I teach a high % of students with SEN. In terms of swearing at an adult the sanction is the same, just like it is for hitting a member of staff or another child. It gives time for things to calm down, sends a clear message that there are boundaries you do not cross and are always followed by a meeting where support is discussed as needed.

youarenotkiddingme: The OP used those words, she didn't say those were the teacher's words (and I did ask). I can't see a teacher reporting back to a parent that a TA 'got in her son's face' - that language would be prejudicial and unprofessional.

And although the answer isn't automatic exclusion (it never is), it is fair for it to be the norm that a child who swears at a member of staff, absent real extenuating circumstances (not being told off) should be excluded. There would have to be a bloody good reason why not.

As for 'lessons on both sides' I would agree with this IF the TA was aggressive. I just don't think I can say with any confidence whether that was the case.

WouldHave: We do know. His mum believes he has autistic traits and suffers the effects of childhood trauma. This is not the same as having a recognised disability supported by a diagnosis or assessment he is going through.

WouldHave: And 'known autistic traits' - they don't know he has those traits as they haven't assessed him. You cannot just assert that a child has autistic traits and expect adjustments to be made. There are steps that have to be taken first and these haven't been taken in this case.

I can't believe all these posters saying book an appointment op and go and get a diagnosis, like you go to the gp and get a diagnosis in 5 minutes. We have been trying to get a diagnosis of aspergers for my ds since he was 2.5. Every health care professional who has seen him agrees it is likely aspergers but the process is still taking years. First the referral to paediatrician took months. Then paediatrician referred to specialist paediatrician because cahms reject every case, that took another 10 months for an appointment. Then when we saw the specialist paediatrician they said they will meet to diagnose him in 13 months because that is how long the waiting list is with the NHS. And they have already informed us they have zero support to offer. I very much doubt op can just pop to someone and get a diagnosis. Op is doing her best, without a diagnosis, with a child who has trauma on top of that and trying to advocate for her child. In no way is getting into a child's face and yelling at them at all appropriate no matter the provocation (and here there was very little). It is intimidating and scary and therefore unsurprising the ds reacted badly. School are not wrong to sanction him because he needs to see there are consequences to responding like that but at the same time they should be meeting with op to see how they can support her ds to prevent it happening in future. For a child to react therehatohatlso badly something has gone very wrong and the ta needs to be taken to account for their behaviour too.

Trifle, you are confusing the fact that OP said he doesn't have a diagnosis of autism with the issue of childhood trauma, which is accepted and uncontested. An official diagnosis isn't the be-all and end-all: the law, for example, does not require a diagnosis to have been made for someone to be regarded as disabled for disability discrimination purposes, and there have been numerous cases where people have been found liable for disability discrimination without any diagnosis.

WouldHave: Again, I know all this re. a diagnosis. Childhood trauma is not a recognised disability. I have read the thread carefully and don't believe I am confused.

Anyway, I am going to step away here as I think I have made my points repeatedly. We seem to simply disagree about the issues.

I did not say she sgpukdbe tarred a d feathered! Just for the record, Trifle

op please come over to the special needs board. You are correct that this should never have happened. You won't find understanding here though for the most part. I want to live in this magic place where you can just get a diagnosis.

As a parent of a child stuck in the referral system I assume since you say possible autism that he's been referred, especially as the school appear to have worked with the senco to put plans in place to help him.

The problem here is the TA has undermined the teacher by going against the plans set up for him. This has escalated things and tbh the teacher was probably incredibly uncomfortable and confused. It sounds to me like the TA is one who either doesn't understand Autism or refuses to believe it unless they have that piece of paper that says he has it.

Please use the back to school meeting to discuss how you and the school can work together and what you can BOTH do to prevent recurrence.

Italiangreyhound: I didn't say you specifically said this.

I know Trifle just wanting to go on record as a non-tar-and-feather-er!

user1471439727 why shouldn't't the OP post here? Do you here on mimsnet or here in AIBU?

As far as being humiliated some children may find being shouted at for no good reason humiliating.

A consequence is what happens as a result of something else. So many, many things are consequences.

I absolutely think this is a consequence.

Perhaps the consequence of the child being shouted at was him swearing, and the consequence of that was him bring excluded. So the TA very much set this on motion, IMHO.

No, hold back on the tar and feathers, but yes, find a way to avoid repetitions.

By the way the OP did not say shouts in his face or raises her voice in the opening post. She said "The TA hates his colouring and shouts at him to stop. He then shouts back. It then turns into a shouting match." This suggested a sustained campaign of unpleasant behaviour initiated by the TA , not a one off loss of temper.

Italiangreyhound: Perhaps the consequence of the child being shouted at was him swearing, and the consequence of that was him bring excluded.

In the sense of strict causation, yes, but equally in the cause might be seen as the fact that he was colouring in! You have to separate causation from culpability, or every time a child goes to isolation because he/she is rude to me it's my fault for asking them not to be rude to me. Unless we know the TA behaved inappropriately (and I honestly don't think we do from what has been shown here) the only direct cause of the exclusion was the child's extreme reaction to being told off.

I do sympathise because I know these are complex issues, but you really can't run a school in the way some people here are suggesting and expect students to do well.