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

Trifle,to give you an idea of what is considered reasonable from a legal standpoint, from case law, there are only 1 or 2 children per county whose needs cannot possibly be met in mainstream school.

I don't know about the OPs area, but in this LA, personal care is part of the job description for every T and LSA, regardless of whether they are employed as a general TA or 1:1. Any one employed on such a contract would be obligated to care for a child in this way. To refuse without good reason would surely be a breach of contract.

No trifle the final decision doesn't rest with his mum. If his mum said it was fine for the child to wander around distressed with his hands covered in faeces then that wouldn't be ok!
If a ta has been employed and it isn't it their contract to do personal care and the school no longer have a need for a general ta then their position is redundant. If they aren't willing to sign a contract for a new position which involves personal care then the school need to employ a new member of staff who is.

As I say I think I have given my opinion here. I will say I think the attitudes of some people towards the TA are incredibly unreasonable and unfair. I hope these people never end up in a situation where their employment rights are completely disregarded in this way.

It's not anyone's right to continue to have a job if the job they originally applied for no longer exists (viz 1:1 without personal care). Depending on how long the TA has been there and exact contract wording she may or may not be entitled to redundancy pay in that situation.

I wouldn't say their employment rights are eroded if they can't or won't meet the obligations of the role then school have no choice but to fill the role with someone who can. There is no alternative, the child's needs have to be met, if not by them by someone more able and willing to meet their needs.
In our LA like a pp's contracts for TA's in Primary have a clause for personal care when needed so if a TA isn't prepared to offer personal care then they shouldn't be surprised if they are no longer employed in a role that requires it. No one holds a gun to their heads when they sign their contract.
For me I wouldn't want to provide personal care and so wouldn't seek employment where there would be any possibility that that might be required which is also an option to anyone else who feels the same.

smelly thank you for making such a good point - TA contracts vary by LA

In this LA NOT all TA contracts include personal care (although they probably do in infant school, or at least Year R). Therefore a TA is perfectly entitled not to accept doing personal care if it is not in their contract, but obviously a school with children with such needs must have some TAs on a different contract. I, personally, would never accept a contract that included personal care, but I make a massive impact on children's learning (as demonstrated by the data) for sod all money a month. Other TAs are perfectly happy to do it.

But if there are no longer any positions in the school that don't require personal care then their job would be redundant. I'm sure schools would attempt to switch ta's around to avoid that happening but if the only available role is one that requires personal care assistance (for eg a child who begins to need it after the onset of illness or an accident) and none of the current ta's are willing to do it then one would have to go as there would be no job for them.

The TA is perfectly within her rights to say that personal care isn't part of her job. So let's leave that there.

Not if it's in her job description. I've just looked at a sample, and it seems pretty routine for them to include provision such as "Attend to the pupil’s personal requirements and physical care on a daily basis", "Attend to pupils’ personal needs, and implement related personal programmes, including social, health, physical, behavioural, hygiene, first aid and welfare matters", "• Attend to pupil’s personal care needs and assist with the organisation of refreshments and mealtimes to ensure pupils’ wellbeing and health and safety", "Provide support for the class teacher and colleagues to ensure pupils’ wellbeing, health and safety is maintained, and assist with the development of hygiene, toilet training and general dressing programmes", and "Assist the pupil with tasks related to daily living where their medical condition or physical problems mean that they need physical help".

What kind of 1:1 for a child with sn would refuse to this?! She's doing the wrong job if she isn't able to do something so basic, she'd prefer your ds to miss school than to pop on some gloves and help him wipe his bum?!

So often sn in mainstream schools get this kind of awful support, it's just not on and not fair for so many children.

I will say I think the attitudes of some people towards the TA are incredibly unreasonable and unfair. I hope these people never end up in a situation where their employment rights are completely disregarded in this way.

Manifestly it is neither unreasonable or unfair to expect a TA to help with toileting if that is part of their job, and requiring them to comply with the duties they were employed for cannot be an infringement of their employment rights.

Again, I keep saying I won't post but keep reading comments that I feel I need to respond to!

if that is part of their job, and requiring them to comply with the duties they were employed for cannot be an infringement of their employment rights.

Yes. IF that is part of their job and they were employed to do that. If they weren't and it isn't, then it is manifestly unfair for them lose their job or be forced to resign. Constructive dismissal in my view.

Yes, if the TA has not signed up for intimate care as part of their job, then they can't be forced to do it. However as schools will have children with a plethora of different needs, it should IMO be part of the job description that there will be a chance that the job may entail, for example diabetes training, epilepsy training, tube feeding, and will almost certainly (in any primary school) involve times when you have to assist a child with intimate care or change nappies - and you, as the prospective candidate - how do you feel about that.

If a TA working with my son refused to attend to any of his medical or intimate care needs I would request they no longer work with my son. They would be letting him down.

This is the school's problem. They messed up with an automated letter and also with failing to provide for your son. A TA cannot be made to provide intimate care if not in their job description BUT the school are required to employ someone suitable who does and is trained in relevant safeguarding. As a teacher I would take the view that a TA wasn't very compassionate if s/he refused (I helped children numerous times and would never ask a TA to do something I wouldn't) but it's the school who is at fault.

If a TA working with my son refused to attend to any of his medical or intimate care needs I would request they no longer work with my son. They would be letting him down.

I would be inclined to agree, IF they had taken the job in the circumstances you describe. If not, they are simply exercising their right to do their job but not take on responsibilities they are uncomfortable with.

I think focusing on the TA's refusal here is the wrong angle. It's the head that is responsible for ensuring they have the right staff to meet needs. They need to be making the right hiring decisions, putting in the right terms of service and reshuffling staff to ensure needs are covered so that all children can receive the education they are entitled to. Whether a particular TA wants to do personal care or not isn't really her nor there. She should not have been in a position where her sticking to her terms of service meant the exclusion of the child, and she certainly shouldn't have been put in the position of phoning the OP to tell her not to bring the child in. A head that hasn't ensured there are TAs around who will perform personal care seems to have made a big mistake really. That is surely going to be an issue that rears its head from time to time.

The head seems to have stepped back from the management role both in the provision of a TA who wouldn't meet the boys needs before Christmas and by not ensuring he can be in school until the end of the day now. Having a go at TAs who stick to their terms of service (that the head hired them under) seems to be totally the wrong focus to me.

Trifle her dc has a EHCP(new version of a statement ) part of that plan will cover his toilet and health care needs.we're not talking about a child whose parents just haven't bothered to toilet train here.The school gets twice times 1:1 TA pay for her ds at sn rate.Most specialist/higher TAS get slightly higher pay to compensate...I have worked in same field and also been in exactly the same position as you OP as parent even down to meltdowns
, trying to keep ds clean and meetings at school about school about bad attendance.Get letter from consultants, gps to support your case ..document everything and keep everything .You will be fine it's a tick box exercise mainly for schools otherwise they get into trouble but can understand you being peed off..everything seems to be a fight when it shouldn't be there is a lack of understanding.Learn to fight for important things but keep calm and very cool learn to trust your gut instincts.To be honest we got more support from welfare officer as they knew it was health issue.know off subject but.my ds has just become clean and dry at 14, his body suddenly caught up it seems, I would of given both arms to be at this stage 8 years ago...baby steps!

Sorry previous message was so long and wish you and your ds well x

sashadasher: I didn't say anything like that. Please don't put words in my mouth! IF the TA was hired to do personal care, she was unreasonable to refuse. IF she wasn't, she wasn't unreasonable to refuse. It isn't complicated.

Jobs become redundant all the time. It would only be unfair if they employed someone else to do the exact same job or the staff member was unable to carry out the new duties due to their own disability. If the job they are contracted to do no longer exists of course they are made redundant the same as in any line of work.

And the head was unreasonable to say it was the ta's call - talk about passing the buck!