To be furious at ds school?

[weneednopants]

This is going to be a long post. Sorry
So backstory is ds (6) has sn. With various extra conditions. One of which is bowel issues. He either can't go or is very much the other way (sorry tmi). Anyway just before Christmas he was going through a lets say loose episode. Not contagious just his normal movements. Now he struggles with coordination and finds cleaning himself after toileting very difficult. Added to this he has asd and will have a complete meltdown if he gets poo on his hands. So in light of this I rang school to advise that he may need assistance when he uses the toilet just while he was going through this episode. His allocated 1:1 ta phones back to say in no uncertain terms she wasn't willing to help him and because he was likely to have a meltdown she didn't want him to come in until his bowel movements had firmed up.
So to the aibu part.
Today I received from the school an attendance warning letter. Telling me we are on a monitored 6 week period. If attendance doesn't improve we will be put before the attendance panel and face possible prosecution. His attendance dropped because the school wouldn't allow him to attend and now I'm put on warning!! I wanted him to go to school during that period not be at home perfectly well and bored but because his ta wouldn't wipe his arse when it needed it he had to stay home. Am I wrong in thinking this is totally unfair and in fact the school should be taking responsibility for his absence. Sorry for the long post

That's ridiculous! You are not being unreasonable! They are. Maybe have a meeting with them and explain the situation. That's nuts!!

Yanbu

The school couldn't meet his needs so he couldn't attend. That's their fault not yours or DS's.

I think this is probably automated, but of course if the school (not the TA) told you to keep him off they won't have a leg to stand on.

Your attitude to the TA isn't great, is it?

Ridiculous. I'm a TA and expected to do this (and when I was working in a special school, multiple times a day)
If the TA won't do it, she shouldn't be working in a primary school. What a shame

www.cafamily.org.uk/advice-and-support/education-health-and-social-care/

plaws101: I'm really quite shocked. I don't think you can be obliged to do this as part of learning support.

It's not the TA's place to have contacted you to say this to you.

At all!

Are you sure they had the school's backing?

Trifle I'm unsure if it's officially stated anywhere that it's part of the job, (it isn't in my job description for example) but from the schools I've worked in it has always been expected of us. If we refused it would be pretty much the same as refusing to read with/work with a child/administer first aid, which obviously isn't okay.
Sorry for going off topic as I realise this is mainly about attendance 😬

plaws101: It's alright. But surely it's incredibly compromising, sending you alone into the toilet cubicle with a child and making you clean intimate areas?

I don't think it's a good idea that TA's have to wipe intimate areas either. Surely that's the very essence of safeguarding? Can you, as his Mother, attend with him to do this? I know a child broke their leg in my daughter's class and her Mother attended school with her for six weeks to wheel her around etc and attend to her toileting needs. I really don't think you can expect TA's to wipe bums, it's not what they signed up for.

I think helping with personal care is pretty standard for 1-1 support in mainstream or in special schools. If it is more than verbal prompting needed then I imagine a second member of staff should be present. What is the alternative? That children with medical issues like the op's ds aren't able to go to school?
I would contact the head to explain about your sons absence and also find out what can be done to enable your sons medical needs to be accommodated at school. Does your son have an ehcp?

At DC's primary school, and in the one I worked in, they used to phone parents to come and clean up intimate areas if there was an accident. Not sure if this applied to SN's though.

One DM wouldn't come because she'd just arrived at the gym! Same as once when her DD was sick everywhere. Lovely woman!

I don't think you can expect parents to give up work so children with sn can access their education. And a parent wandering around the school and in the childrens toilets would bring it's own safeguarding issues surely?
What about children who have toiletting issues into adulthood. Are their parents supposed to attend school with them each day for the whole of their education?

This is outrageous. I'd be fuming too

Not surprised her attitude towards the TA isn't great Trifle.

The TA shouldn't be working with young children if she doesn't want to occasionally assist with toilet troubles.
Surely on taking a job like that you accept you might have to do things like that sometimes
Ok it's not like a nursery full of toddlers where it's a given, but 6 years olds are not always competent at stuff like that, never mind those with SN.

I would read them the riot act.
They refused to accept him as they refused to assist him in the loo.
They let his absence levels rise.
Then they haul you in for his high absence and threaten prosecution?!
Nope!

purplefizz26: God, no, it's really not part of the job - children are expected to be able to use the toilet alone and there are excellent safeguarding reasons for this. I would refuse outright to wipe a child's bottom.

Yes my son does have an ehcp now. He also has 2 new ta's employed specifically for him. ( different to the ta unwilling to help)I have discussed the intimate care issues with ht. new ta's are more than willing to help him on the occasion's he needs it. Yes the ht was aware of the ta's unwillingness to help him at that time. She said it was the ta's call whether he could attend or not. However my issue is more regarding the attendance warning and all the possible implications that go with it.

The TA handled it wrong in the first place I'd think. Surely schools are not allowed to exclude a child for continence issues, that sounds massively discriminatory. If the TA couldn't or wouldn't do it, surely she should have spoken to her manager and someone should have made alternative arrangements, or been talking to you about what can be done about the situation. Not just saying "keep him at home".

I would reply to the letter to get in writing exactly what happened, what TA said, date, what dates he was off, so your back's covered. And ask for a meeting with the head to discuss this, particularly what the process should be next time it happens because your DS missing out on his education isn't the answer.

That's not on. But this needs a paper trail.

Dear HT,

Thank you for the letter dated x regarding DC attendance.

I'm confused and would like you to clarify the situation.

As is fully documented ds has difficulties with his bowels alongside his asd and difficulties in self care.

On x date I spoke to xxxxxx and asked for him to be supported in self care whilst he went through a difficult period with Mosel movements. I was told that this was not possible and ds should remain at home until it is under control.

I have followed this instruction.

Can you please inform me how you are going to support ds so he can attend school as is his legal right for a full time education which is what we all want.

My child is 11 and not toilet trained. He is usually changed by one person and there are only two people there if it is thought there might be challenging behaviour. This has been the case in mainstream and special school.
Op, the school should not be saying he cannot attend school because he needs help with toileting. They have to provide that help.

X post, I see they do have what happens next time covered. I'd still get it in writing if it isn't, but otherwise just ignore. No one's going to prosecute you and if they call you in front of a panel they'll only look silly.

TAS helping with toileting usually comes under 'any other duties reasonably required' in their contract, and it shouldn't be a safeguarding issue because the school is already saying they're safe enough to work with children. It isn't a legal requirement to have 2 staff members present, although it's a common misconception. It's also not legal under the DDA to expect parents to come in and sort their child. All schools should have a continence policy to detail what they will do when needed.
Can you tell I've been researching this for work this week?!

The school should have a policy regarding toileting and continence problems, anyway. Perhaps ask for that. The TA has a right to say this isn't her role, unless it has specifically been arranged otherwise and she has received appropriate training and - crucially - there is a second member of staff available to support her.