To think it's a bit late of the school to stop DS going on his residential trip now!

[EnglishRose1320]

DS1 is in year 6, has just been diagnosed as having autism and is finding the sats practice very stressful, as a result he refused to go into class this morning and instead sat outside waving a stick around.
The deputy called and said they were going to have to review whether he goes on the residential trip or not and probably wouldn't be able to.
AIBU to think that it's a bit late, the trip is straight after sats, DS is excited (which is rare) we have forked out nearly £200 for it and although the diagnosis was recent DS has been in the school for coming up 4 years, they should know him by now and be able to accommodate his needs.

befuddledgardener:

I think for PDA that would be zero and nil, as it isn't a recognised medical condition. Correct me if I am wrong!

I thought it was part of the autistic spectrum

In theory it is, but isn't recognised as a medical diagnosis.

Pathological demand avoidance (PDA), or Newson's syndrome, is a proposed subtype of autism characterized by an avoidance of demand-framed requests by an individual. It was proposed in 1980 by the UK child psychologist Elizabeth Newson

Google is my friend! It is 'proposed'.

I am wondering if he is in the right school? Sometimes mainstream isn't suitable for the whole of an academic career and he may be benefit from a more supportive environment.

Trifle / befuddled
Pda in the UK is rarely a stand alone diagnosis, because, as you say, it is not in psychiatric manuals (dsm 5/ ICD 10) and therefore cannot be diagnosed by most psychiatrists. It is more often referred to in children with autism diagnoses where the pattern is recognised. Eg diagnosis would be "autism with demand avoidant profile" or some such. In which case the condition would be covered by Equalities Act.

No school gets allocated funding for sen pupils without using some of their budget first, unless the child already has a healthcare plan (ehcp) when they start at the school. The code of practice states that before turning to the local authority for funds, the school must use it's "best endeavours" to meet the child's needs, including financially. This is currently set at 6000 pounds spent trying to support the child (can include TA wages, time, buying in Ed psych, etc). If the child is awarded an ehcp the school is still expected to fund the first 6000 of any support outlined in the ehcp, per annum. (Eg if the student has 15 hours 1:1 and 6000 covers 8 hours, the LA will pay for 7 hours).

We risk assessed taking a child with autism on a residential and drew up a plan which we thought he could cope with.

He stayed with his mum in a nearby holiday cottage and they met us each day for the activities. We encouraged mum to take a few hours each day to do something by herself and leave him with us. They came for tea in the evenings and built up to him staying for the evening activities too. He did have one meltdown, but we dealt with it. There was an extra member of staff there in case of that happening.

It was as much as he could cope with and it was a successful trip all round.

When I was in mainstream, the parent attended PGL and stayed with the child all weekend. The 1-1 didn't go as they were not funded.

Trecaletoffee- although he does find some things tricky 90% + of the time he is engaging and fitting in like any other child and he would never get a space at a non mainstream school.
My friend's son has far more additional needs than my DS, has a 1:1 and regularly needs classrooms to be emptied when he is having a meltdown, they went down the route of trying to get him into alternative provision and were unsuccessful. In our area we have very few places available.
The places available are also for children who have a learning difficulty as well. My DS is not behind academically, in some areas he is ahead so unless his behaviour massively goes down hill and he gets regular exclusions he will always be in mainstream education.

Shockers- I would be more than happy with a plan like that. I just want the school to be open to discussing options and feel they should have already been checking what they could and couldn't manage.

AtSea- due to my own work commitments in a school I wouldn't be able to go for the first day but would be happy to arrive Friday evening and stay for the rest of the trip.

I wouldn't offer unless they say for sure that he definitely can't go.

Yes I'm planning to leave it as a last option. Up until this year he has only ever stayed at my parents if he isn't with us. This year he has been invited to a couple of sleep overs and they have gone really well. He wants to go on his own and that is amazing and if they support and he comes back having managed to do it without me it is really going to do his self esteem a world of good. I think it is totally possible.

Sounds like the school spend a lot of time and effort dealing with the behaviour issues of just one child but as he's your child you think that's ok.

Could you ask if you can go with him?

Sounds like the school spend a lot of time and effort dealing with the behaviour issues of just one child but as he's your child you think that's ok.

School have to meet children's needs - support staff are there to support those needs

OP didn't chose to have a difficult child - your comments are unwarranted

It's not about time and effort (despite the fact I fully appreciate the teachers do not get paid extra for this).

If a child needs 1:1 on a trip they are entitled to it under qualities act.

It's about whether this can child can be kept safe - such a risk assessment will determine.

The school should be engaging in conversations around this as not doing so again is against the act.

If any child cannot be kept safe then they can't go.

You also have to be reasonable and not expect a school to do something you a) wouldn't do with your own child and b) do something you can't manage with your own child.

The thing with inclusion is that many people translate it as "everyone can go and is entitled to go". But in reality not every activity suits every body. As adults we don't do things we can't manage. It's no fairer to a child to send them somewhere they'd struggle to cope than it is to expect a teacher to take them.

Inclusion is about removing barriers where possible to make the visit accessible. The reality is this is not going to be possible for everyone in every situation.

Llangennith- they don't spend a lot of time at all, they did on one occasion because they are reactive not proactive. They knew in advance this was going to be an incredibly difficult week for DS and they choose to go with a 'wait and see' approach rather than putting things in place to prevent his aniexty escalating.
I would be happy for them to spend as much time needed with any child that was distressed/anxious or had an additional need that was preventing them from fuller accessing their education.
I work 1:1 with a child in another school, a lot of the time I can also work with others and have spent time with children with no additional need persuading them into school when something has unsettled them.
As it is my son does have an additional need, the school have been aware of his needs for nearly 4 years and they have a record of things that trigger him, yet for some reason they still don't put support in place. By support I don't mean anything that is outside of a schools struggling budget. I mean visual timetables/letting him see the room he has to do his tests in/sensory breaks. Essentially just really simple steps to prepare for change.

Llangennith, the school has a duty to do that as they have to all children that are pupils at that school.

Fight it. This happened to my son and I contacted the head and spoke to him about every child having the opportunity to attend the trip and the detrimental affects of my son not going, he was already unsettled in school. It was a bit of a challenge but eventually a slightly unusual solution was found but he went! Good luck.

Even if the public purse is treated as a Magic Bottomless Pit - and it shouldn't be - there is no such pit of teachers willing to disrupt their personal lives at short notice to take on the responsibilities of a resi.

If the teachers' professional assessment is that one more teacher will be needed than was planned for and nobody steps forward - that is the end of the road. Sure, they may be able to juggle with other schools and supply teachers - not ideal for those left behind - but if there is nobody, there is nobody. Game over.

The PP who suggested that if they can't take this lad they should cancel the trip for everyone needs to get real. Apart from anything else it would become known why the trip was cancelled - parents and children are not stupid - and children of that age have ways of making their displeasure felt.

The Senco has emailed a time for a meeting tomorrow. I am planning to aim for him going but I'm not an unreasonable person. If they can show me that they have done a risk assessment regarding DS and they can not safely take him with reasonable adjustment then I will offer to go.

Andrewofgg- I am fairly certain the trio would not be cancelled but if it did I don't see how the other children would know why.

there is no such pit of teachers willing to disrupt their personal lives at short notice to take on the responsibilities of a resi.

It shouldn't be at short notice, it should have been properly planned for.

If the teachers' professional assessment is that one more teacher will be needed than was planned for and nobody steps forward - that is the end of the road

Employees generally need to act in accordance with directions from their employers.

Andrewofgg- I am fairly certain the trio would not be cancelled but if it did I don't see how the other children would know why.

It's unreasonable to think that nobody is going to at least suspect the truth - even i if it's just the school gate rumour mill kicking in. Also, if the entire trip was cancelled the school would have to put out some sort of official announcement and it would have to address why it was cancelled, because the other parents aren't going to take "Because we said so" as a reason. So the school will word it diplomatically and be as vague as they can but it will end up being obvious that the trip cancelled on the grounds of safeguarding children's welfare/risk assessment/H&S/insurance issues etc might have something to do with the child in Jane's class who has been wandering round the school field and refusing to come into lessons that she told her mum about the other day.

It shouldn't be at short notice, it should have been properly planned for.

And it was planned for - based on OPs DS's needs at the time it was planned ... since then his needs have changed, apparently due to the SATs but with no guarantee that it will return to previous levels, to a point where the school feels they may not be able to cope with him based on the previous arrangements and new arrangements need to be made late in the day.

Employees generally need to act in accordance with directions from their employers.

And employers can't force teachers to go on voluntary residential trips, regardless of what their employers want. It's like in any job - I work in retail now, if I get offered overtime above and beyond my contracted hours I am under no obligation to take it if it doesn't suit me, no matter what directions my boss gives me. It might be beneficial for my career progression to take extra work (eg if there are more contract hours available those who regularly offer/ask for overtime are going to be top of the list for them) but that is my choice, not my boss' to make for me.

Melj123- DS is not the the most disruptive child in that year group. If it was cancelled on behaviour grounds their are several other children that was also be suspected. It's rather a moot point though because it won't be cancelled.

My main issue is that it hasn't been planned for. His behaviour hasn't changed. They have changed their mind based on the latest example of his behaviour but they know historically that it isn't new behaviour and that it is avoidable.