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.

A TA told him that he wouldn't be allowed to go on the trip? Who told her to say that to your ds? I cannot believe for one moment that the TA would have the authority to make that decision.

Cato:

The school may not be able to find two additional staff to attend the residential at short notice. I don't do residentials myself, they're generally a massive pain in the arse.

And I think the OP is being massively unrealistic here about how specifically any 1:1 or allocated members of staff can meet her DS' needs. If he climbs a fence or a climbing wall or jumps in a canoe, he will be in clear, immediate danger. If his 1:1 is having a poo or a shower, another member of staff will have to step in.

I would refuse point blank to take a child on a residential trip who couldn't be relied upon to follow safety instructions. I simply will not be responsible for something happening to them or to another child because my attention was occupied by someone trying to abscond.

I would refuse point blank to take a child on a residential trip who couldn't be relied upon to follow safety instructions. I simply will not be responsible for something happening to them or to another child because my attention was occupied by someone trying to abscond.

I agree totally, I wouldn't be prepared to take that responsibility.

I can understand teachers being worried about safety.

What I don't understand is why you would tell a child they can go and then withdraw the offer of the trip as this is cruel.

I don't understand why you would use the threat of withdrawal of the trip as this is a sure-fire way of increasing stress levels and increasing the likelihood of incidents (ds1 for instance can cope with change but not uncertainty).

I don't understand why you would not have a discussion with the parent as to what adjustments might or might not be needed BEFORE you (a) Decide whether it is safe for the child to go and (b) You make the offer for the child to go on the trip.

*I would refuse point blank to take a child on a residential trip who couldn't be relied upon to follow safety instructions. I simply will not be responsible for something happening to them or to another child because my attention was occupied by someone trying to abscond.

I agree totally, I wouldn't be prepared to take that responsibility.*

Agreed

And I don't want to sound in any way derogatory about TAs here but if I have a quick mental look around our staff room and try to imagine any one of them being responsible for chasing a 9 year old intent on running away through the New Forest, or wherever they're going, up hill and down dale, I have to have a little chuckle to myself. These are exclusively middle aged women, all significantly overweight, all likely to struggle getting in and out of a canoe, let alone leaping into action to stop your determined 9 year old from doing what he has decided to do that is making him and others unsafe. Having someone with him 1:1 won't keep him safe in all situations and environments. It is kind enough for TAs to give up their nights and go away with a huge group of students without expecting them to be responsible for a lad who can't follow instruction. He will need to take instruction from any member of staff, including qualified instructors he has never met, including members of staff he doesn't necessarily like.

You would think from reading some of these posts that no child with this type of sn has ever gone on any residential.

You are missing the point that if you put in adequate support to help the child feel safe then it is much more unlikely the child will abscond in the first place. The goal in dealing with children with challenging behaviour should be prevention rather than dealing with the aftermath. We had a period at the end of primary where ds1 often would run off, however, this rarely happens now (can't remember the last time infact) because we have changed how we manage his behaviour so things do not escalate.

I teach in a school with a high proportion of children with SEN and we've never excluded a child from attending a residential in 17 years. That said we currently have 2 children lower down the school whose behaviour is so extreme (violent and unpredictable) that I can see this being a possibility in their case. We have no extra support for these children and we have to constantly weigh up their needs alongside the safety and wellbeing of the other 28 children in their class. I don't know op or her son and I very much hope he can go on the trip but to suggest that schools make these decisions lightly over mild, slightly annoying behaviour is insulting.

I have every sympathy for parents in this situation. At our school we'd definitely ask if a parent could attend or agree with everyone concerned that if behaviour was out of control we'd have to call them to collect their child. This has never happened in my 20 years of teaching but that's the approach we'd take unless the behaviour was very dangerous.

OneInEight:

Much more unlikely isn't good enough next to a lake or a cliff edge. I wouldn't take that risk with any child who I wasn't confident would follow instructions.

Spikeyball i agree with your comment above.

Thanks for all the views. A lot of them sound like you are talking about a totally different child to my DS. I think maybe I would have to give you even more information to make it clearer and that would totally out me.
I will discuss it with the school. We will work together to come to a solution. As I have said many times it is the manner in which they have gone about this that is the problem. I have as a t.a had to use a trip as a carrot for a child but we had a meeting with the child's parents, worked out what was and wasn't safe and how many warnings the child would have in school/ explained expectations and warnings to the child when they were calm. I certainly didn't take it upon myself to shout at the child whilst they were panicking and tell them they couldn't go.
I have also successfully taken children that run away/climb/refuse to move on outdoors pursuits trips. In fact a previous headteacher thought that with the location of our school it was more important that children with additional needs went on walks and got to know how to cope 'in the wild'
Trifle- we are clearly very lucky that the majority of our t.as are quite athletic, some are even quite speedy males!
All the people saying they couldn't risk not watching for one second etc, he is very predictable and has very predictable patterns, he copes with change when it is managed and he never just flies of the handle. When upset yesterday they asked him to move to a safe spot and he did. They will see if he is unsettled far before he refused to move. As I have pointed out, yes we like the t.a but she has worked with him for two weeks. The teachers going on the trip have worked with him for 2/3 years, they really know him.

Well, that's great, OP, but in my school they're not. I guess there is no one-size-fits-all here. Obviously if I felt confident taking any specific child away I would, but if I didn't no-one would be able to force me to do so. I would just drop out of the trip and say I couldn't take that responsibility on.

How far away is the residential?

My ds with asd went on his schools. At the beginning of the school year we discussed this and sats. Maybe for us it was easier as trip was beginning of year 6!

Ds and I visited the site. He already said there were activities he would not do. So school knew possible triggers and centre staff said they were activities he could have s role in without taking part.

I even offered his weeks dla to them towards any extra costs of reasonable adjustments.
His Elsa went so he had a familiar face to confide in.

W had a back up plan that he'd do day times only if he couldn't manage.

Ok, it was difficult. But they wanted to give him the same opportunities. So despite crying one evening for 3 hours they didn't call me. (He was homesick) and despite bolting one evening because the campfire scared him they just dealt with it.

I was ever so grateful I made giant muffin sized cupcakes and bought nice tea and coffee and presented it to the staff the following week!

youarenotkiddingme:

Who would you have blamed if when he bolted he was injured or went missing?

Youarenotkiddingme- that sounds like my experiences of residential trips and what I would hope for DS. The trip is about 40mins away from home so not far at all. It's actually my birthday nr the trip and oh has offered to treat me to a night in a hotel and said it could be even closer to the trip if that would help.
DS is clear on what activities he can manage and what ones he can't. If he knows he doesn't have to do an activity he will happily watch others doing it and join in with encouraging people.

Distraction cannot be used during activities such as archery or abseiling (absailing?).

Trifle I'm a middle aged but pretty fit TA and I still wouldn't guarantee I could catch a child who was determined to do a runner! Residential trips are really full on and there's enough work for staff to do without having to manage a child who doesn't listen or follow instructions, has a meltdown or runs off. I'm not speaking specifically about the Op's child here. I'm talking more generally about the different kinds of behaviour I think make it difficult to take a child on a residential trip. Even if there's is a 1:1 for a child, what's going to happen at night? I really believe you shouldn't put children with certain needs into situations where they are likely to struggle.
I posted yesterday about a child who the school 'gave the benefit of the doubt to' and took on an overnight trip. I felt unhappy about the decision because I take the responsibility of looking after children seriously and I don't really want to gamble on it. Unfortunately this gamble didn't even pay off and the boy's mother was instructed to come and pick him up. Despite the fact we were actually half an hour away, it took three hours for her to come. Meanwhile two members of staff had to stay with and try to calm a very angry child. Giving him the benefit of the doubt turned into a big fat negative experience which massively impacted his behaviour back at school. In the past, when he'd missed trips due to safety concerns, his mum had taken him on an alternative outing and he never thought twice about it.

I would t have blamed anyone? Ds doesn't bolt far - he's too anxious to be away from trusted adults and it was an enclosed space so he couldn't actually go anywhere.

We'd planned the whole thing down to the final moment - the campfire and his reaction wasn't something we'd ever come across. It was an unknown. It could have easily happened if he was with me.

Youarenotkiddingme- DS doesn't bolt far either, he will often claim he is going back to our old house when he is upset but in practice has never left our driveway.

In primary school my ds was excluded from trips because "his TA will be supervising a group of children so will not be able to supervise him and the only way he can go is if you go and be responsible for him" and then there was the following little gem (which i wont quote because because it will definitely be identifying) we were told pretty much the same thing as above and then was told to keep him off school so that we could do something nice because there wouldn't be anyone at school to support him and that it would be an authorised absence. DS had never caused a problem on any trip that he went on previously and yet was excluded because of something that might have happened.

Our ds has just come back from another residential trip, all the kids have had a great time, that's because the current school is inclusive, yes the staff to pupil ratio was a little higher than average for a residential trip, but this was not your average school residential trip.

Inclusion in mainstream education isn't all it's cracked up to be.

GreatWhites- luckily DS would love both those activities and distraction wouldn't be needed. He has a massive aniexty around school and in particular school testing, he has never had an issues on any school trip in his current school and only one small incident in his primary school. Distraction is a great tool that works well for many situations like if he is unsure about the evening meal. Firm clear instructions work very well for situations where their is an element of danger. He is very safety concerned and would ask not to climb up if he felt nervous rather than run off.
The incident yesterday was due to staff members still trying to get him into Sats practice when he is not meant to be doing sats. So on a residential it would be made clear what the expectations were and he would be fine with that as long as us as parents and the school were saying the same thing. Due to communication issues that did not happen yesterday which means it is very clear a meeting or in fact several meetings will need to happen to insure that does happen for the trip.

Enterthedragon- although DS is going to a mainstream secondary it so far seems far more inclusive than his current school so we are optimistic. The senco from the secondary is already chasing forms and assessments the primary schools have done but haven't.

youarenotkiddingme:

You sound far more reasonable than some parents. Obviously you know your DS and can say with confidence what he would or wouldn't do, but as a teacher I can't have the same confidence, and I know very well that I would be making myself vulnerable to accusations of negligence if a child was hurt. I just wouldn't be willing to risk it with a child I knew had a tendency to run away.