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

FFS, Trifle, no-one's saying a TA should be made to do intimate care if it isn't part of her duties, though it would be very unusual if it were not. But very clearly she has no business telling a parent to keep a child out of school for that reason, and if her job has become redundant because it now entails duties she's not prepared or contracted to perform, there is nothing unlawful about that.

And of course the ta can refuse but they can't then complain if a position of ta w/o personal care duties no longer exists and they no longer have a job! Of course schools would sooner shuffle staff around to avoid paying redundancy but if there was no-one willing to do it that wouldn't be possible.

Two things, apologies if I am repeating anything:

1. This should be recorded not as an authorised absence but as an exclusion. Unless your son was ill with diarrhoea, you were told that he could not come to school because his normal daily needs could not be met. That is an illegal exclusion. Of course, you may not want a fixed term exclusion on his records when he has done nothing wrong, but call them out on illegally excluding him, as it sounds as if that's exactly what they did.

1. ERIC have produced a useful guide called The right to go. Schools have a duty of care to their students and must act in loco parentis. Whilst teaching staff cannot be compelled to attend to toileting needs, support staff can. No member of staff is allowed to ignore toileting needs or breach their duty of care.

FFS, Trifle, no-one's saying a TA should be made to do intimate care if it isn't part of her duties

They have said precisely that.

Surely if a TA is appointed as a 1:1 for a specific child then their job exists only as long as they can meet the needs of that child or the child remains at that placement. Needs change so if this TA can no longer do the job then the school either has to employ somebody else to supplement the duties or, more likely for efficient use of resources, make this TA redundant and employ another person who can fulfill all aspects of the role. My understanding is that you can not make someone redundant and then quickly reappoint someone to do exactly the same role but you can make someone redundant and employ someone with a different job description. You would hope for the TA that school could do a side-ways swop but the obligation for the school is to meet the child's needs as documented by their EHCP plan rather than to keep this TA in employment.

Exactly right OneInEight. And In places I've worked - if you're good at your job and go above and beyond they will try their best to find you a role if your job becomes redundant. An SN ta who cba doing personal care - not so much.

But Trifle, a 1-1 TA will have to do some personal care as part of their job - it is part of their duties. They may have been taken on as a general TA (in any primary school this may involve some form of personal care - whether it is helping a child in the toilet or cleaning up a child who is sick) or they may have been employed as a 1-1 for specific children, in which case they will be expected to deal with that specific child's needs.

Now the school may be at fault not making it clear to prospective employees that working with young children in this capacity may involve personal care (no shit Sherlock) - however in this instance the child is suffering as a result of this refusal, and that is unacceptable.

I'm absolutely open mouthed at some people's responses in here. TA in SS have the same contracts as TA in MS school. The job role and pay scales are determined by the LA.

I work in a SS. I do personal and intimate care, medical care and also provide medication and emergency medication. It would NEVER cross my mind to refuse to do this because I worked in a MS school. There's so much about nowadays about inclusion I would assume without even being told there would be children with these needs within a school.
All children are entitled to a FT education. How have we taken a step backwards that that only includes children with no medical or intimate care needs?

I'm absolutely open mouthed at some people's responses in here. TA in SS have the same contracts as TA in MS school. The job role and pay scales are determined by the LA.

I work in a SS. I do personal and intimate care, medical care and also provide medication and emergency medication. It would NEVER cross my mind to refuse to do this because I worked in a MS school. There's so much about nowadays about inclusion I would assume without even being told there would be children with these needs within a school.
All children are entitled to a FT education. How have we taken a step backwards that that only includes children with no medical or intimate care needs?

I'm absolutely open mouthed at some people's responses in here. TA in SS have the same contracts as TA in MS school

In YOUR LA that is the case.
Not in mine, so please don't generalise

That may be the case, chocolate, but surely a TA in a primary, whether mainstream or special school, must realise there may be some intimate care involved (especially where they are working with a child with an EHCP or care plan)

If you have a 1:1 contract, yes you expect it and you have the appropriate training and certificates to cover you.
I'm not 1:1, it's not in my contract, and after seeing how many parents throw unfounded safeguarding accusations at staff, I would find a different job rather than do intimate care.