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.

I fully get that trifle

Maybe it's because the school knew I was realistic and reasonable they took him? In fact kept him there overnight despite his meltdown mid week and despite knowing I'd have collected him and delivered him the next morning despite it being a 2 he round trip each time!

Since then ds has point blank refused to spend a night away from home! So knowing he struggled despite everyone doing what they felt best I don't send him on residentials anymore. When he started secondary and they did their residential he just did the daytimes. I paid the same price - sent him food I know he eats - and for the first time ever he did something involving heights! (Because we removed the anxieties around the trip itself)

I made his current deputy laugh last week at parents evening when discussing something that they'd tried and that hadn't worked and I replied "hey, he lives with me. I've probably got it wrong on my own more times that everyone else in his life has collectively. When I'm perfect (so never!) then I'll have a moan about you making mistakes!"

youarenotkiddingme:

You sound brilliant.

Youarenotkiddingme- I'm the first to put my hand up to say I don't get it right some/most of the time and all the individual teachers and t.as are the same. We have a good back and forth and I trust the decisions of the class teacher, happy for them to try things and some work/some don't we are all on this journey together. I think the thing I struggle with is in his infant school his headteacher knew him as well and when she made decisions she had him at the heart of them. This headteacher is a super head who is so removed from the pupils I struggle to build up a relationship with her.

Also we are really happy to consider days only/us staying/being ready to pick up/sending own food/taking him before hand to familiarise etc but the school are refusing to discuss it until after sats which only leaves one week to decide and make plans and leaves my DS in a very uncertain position.

I'm sorry but I still think you are being unrealistic. You're saying it would take a minute to brief staff on the trip but have written paragraphs on here about how just one exchange should have been handled and what language should and should not be used.
I am an ex teacher. The ratios on trips don't allow for one student to need a massive amount of observation or time. They just don't. I would never take a child on a residential who I couldn't trust would respond to instructions.
Is this a weekend trip? So unpaid too?

the school are refusing to discuss it until after sats which only leaves one week to decide and make plans and leaves my DS in a very uncertain position.

They have a whole year group doing their SATs and a lot of preparation to do in the short time they have left - not just with the students' prep but with all the logistics etc - they have to prioritise that over your son and a residential trip, especially when the trip and his attendance is behaviour dependant.

They might be wanting to wait because, as you've said, his anxiety is ramped up because of SATs and once they are over you expect things will go back to normal. Perhaps they are waiting to see what happens when the SATs are done with so that they can assess his behaviour and needs. If it goes back to his previous behaviour, then they may assess that they can put strategies/systems in place to allow him to go with perhaps just a few adjustments. However if he remains highly anxious and is still displaying the behaviours that they are concerned about, then they can make a definitive decision that they don't feel they can keep him/the other students safe if he attends.

In addition to that, you have said that it would only take a minute or two to brief staff on how to deal with your DS, but in a residential setting it's not always that easy to remember the "rules" you've been given, and with a child where the specific wording is apparently as important as the message itself it can be a recipe for disaster, especially when you have centre staff to take into account - they may have experience with SEN but they also have to deal with a group of random children and their safety during activities and may not remember all the specifics of how to treat one child. All it could take is the TA seeing some other children doing something unsafe and needing to deal with that as those children are in immediate danger, meanwhile a member of the centre's staff comes over and tells your DS not to do something or changes what they are meant to do and it triggers your DS and it escalates. Or one of the other children does/says something that triggers him during an activity and everyone has to stop because it would be unsafe to have someone behaving unpredictably.

For example if they were doing archery and he was waving a piece of equipment around, and moved away from the other children but moved into the area the other children were firing into. The entire group would have to wait as he was moved to another safer area (even if he did comply it still takes time away from the time allowed for the activity and children who aren't occupied and are just waiting around are children that are more likely to start messing around because they're bored and have nothing to do which will make the situation even worse) , and potentially they may have to stop if multiple staff need to deal with DS and there aren't enough to safely supervise the whole group ... this is an extreme example but I;m just trying to illustrate how even if they follow the same protocol as in school it doesn't mean it doesn't have a bigger impact.

Sorry pressed 'post' instead of the backspace key, i was going to add that it was of course in my experience of mainstream education.

Englishrose it's good that the secondary school seem much more inclusive and i hope everything goes well

Secondary school is a whole different ballgame (again IME) a wider variety of different things going on, more staff involved, more moving around between lessons. information about specific children not being passed on to teaching or Support staff is just one of the things that regularly gets mentioned on threads like this.

I would never take a child on a residential who I couldn't trust would respond to instructions

Not picking on you particularly but...

I see this and similar comments on this thread from teachers. If dealing with a child who is simply disobedient there is no problem with taking this approach. However, if their behaviour is related to a disability that is another matter entirely. Schools are required under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments to allow pupils with a disability to take part in all activities. If this went to tribunal it would be up to the school to argue that no reasonable adjustments were possible. So, assuming the OP's son's behaviour is due to his autism and that 1:1 supervision is needed to keep him safe, the school would have to justify why it was unable to provide 1:1 supervision.

It may be that, in this case, the school has adequate justification. But I'm afraid too many schools deal with this kind of situation as if the child was just another disobedient child. That is not good enough. Saying you can't provide 1:1 supervision for every disobedient child will not wash with the tribunal. The question is whether you can provide 1:1 supervision for this child.

Ds1's friend refused to P.E the other day. They have already been on their residential so that couldn't be used. (He was fine on the residential). They are just all getting a bit stressed about SATs. He has no special needs. He had to stand outside Head's office for the duration of PE, but I really don't think they would have prevented him from attending the residential because of it. And that it was for sanctions. I think they know everyone is stressed and it's better not to further upset them.

They are all stressed. Even NT kids. Really, this time has to be taken into consideration. If he is in the habit of refusing to co-operate that's fine. However, I doubt it - otherwise this issue would have come up before. It is a one-off at a stressful time. I don't think it can be taken so seriously.

I think actually you've shot yourself in the foot here though.
The title is "To think it's a bit late of the school to stop Ds".

But the issue seems to be that his behaviour has deteriorated recently (probably down to SATS, but it could be other things like knowing there's a change of school etc). So they were happy to take him before his behaviour deteriorated, which was great.
However you're assuming that his behaviour will improve. You can't guarantee it will, nor can you say how much it will improve after sats.
But from this, you're asking them to make a decision later. You obviously think that the decision later will be that he'll be fine. But what if he doesn't improve afterwards? He'd be getting an even later ban.

It may well be that if his behaviour does change like a switch after SATS they may be happy to come back to you and reconsider. I think that would be better than at the very last minute saying he can't go.

On the basis that they were happy to take him until his behaviour deteriorated I think they are prepared to make adjustments, so you'd be unwise to go in with that as your main argument.

Knowing my children's residentials in year 6, they're very activity based and fast moving. If he takes 1 member of staff half an hour to settle, he'll have missed the safety briefing and then not be able to do the activity.
The activities they were doing are ones where you can't risk children's safety. Abseilling, kayaking, skiing etc. I personally would have liked to see some activities that didn't just cater for the outdoor sporty groups, but they don't do those. In those, one silly moment, or a missed safety briefing, panic and turning back at the wrong time, can certainly cause serious injury.

Go and talk to the school, but do it on a "can we make it work for him to go". Maybe they'd be happy for you to bring him for the day (that was done at dc's school with a child who hasn't safe at night) or for you to go, or if he can show XYZ.
If you go in with a "you can't do this, it's not fair" I'll think you'll find that they stick firm.

prh47bridge:

1:1 supervision isn't a magic bullet. There are some situations, like in an outward bound course, where the child cannot be constantly supervised by the same person anyway, for example, if showering, or abseiling with a qualified instructor. The tribunal wouldn't just be about whether 1:1 was possible. It would be about whether the trip leader reasonably felt this wouldn't be enough.

IMHO if a child requires 1:1 in school, they will need 2:1 on a school trip. This is pretty hard to achieve as it's hard enough getting enough adults on school trips. However I have seen it done.

My son has an ASC. When stressed he is highly volatile and struggles to listen.
In year 4 his previous school did a PGL residential. 2 nights.
I went and asked if school were willing to take him. The answer was a resounding YES. They supplied me with a dvd of the place so we could see what was likely to happen. We went through times he might be stressed and thus volatile. I said I was always on standby to go and collect should it be needed. The staff at places like PGL are well trained and they were fantastic with DS. he had a marvellous time.
IN year 5 he went on a weeek long residential with his second primary school (he changed schools because I changed my job) and had a blast. Again school knew him well, asked about triggers. They ahd one issue on the first night when he wandered off from the football game they were playing outside and was found in bed with a book! He hates football and was tired so went to bed. School dealt with that by making DS aware he needed to tell an adult where he was going and then one of the adults went back with him. Once it became clear there was an adult supervising the dorms several other children opted for an early night too and it has now become part of that residential that as staff member supervises the dorms for those children who would prefer down time rather than hooning about playing football in the evening.
My DS was an different boy in year 6. The pressure of SATs really got to him. Teh constant practice, revision, doom and gloom that started pretty much in September. He was far more volatile. But his school knew why and put plenty of measures in place to help him. They don't do a trip in Y6 but I know if they had DS would not have been excluded because of a disability.
I used to be a teacher. I have refused to take one child on a residential before. He was NT but he had no boundaries at home at all, home didn't back us up and he made my life a living hell for a year. Interstingly the HT backed me up and there was no residential that year because we were told by governors that if there was we could not exclude this child.
So, I think school are being unreasonable. It is as plain as the nose on my face that leaving it until a week before the trip to say if your DS can go is bonkers.

1:1 supervision isn't a magic bullet

I'm not suggesting it is. I was using it as an example. And I am not saying that the school is definitely wrong. The question is whether the school is right that no reasonable adjustment is possible.

prh47bridge:

Of course. But some posters seem to think the words 'Equality Act' represent the end of the discussion and obviously that isn't true. The key word is 'reasonable'.

The thing is, there will always be new situations/staff/wording for your DS to deal with and if each requires multiple staff to manage DS, then a school trip might be too much for him and impact ratios badly.

That's an interesting post Jeff.

I would say considering there are known triggers and known ways of dealing with this lads behaviours and no evidence he's a danger to others or himself if the behaviour plan is followed then there should be clear plans in place for his attendance by a back up plan 'in case'.

My ds is in secondary school now. I get letters about ski trips and language exchange trips. School are probably wel aware my ds wouldn't attend anyway but I'm sure if he decided he actually wanted to go they'd be "aareghhhhhhhh!".

I mean seriously! My ds has meltdowns sometimes at school and also at home which can involve head butting things - there is no way you could ask a foreign family to host him for a week! I also wouldn't expect that the trip doesn't run just because there isn't a cats chance in hell my ds could access it.
Same with skiing - they are usually coach trips. Ds can't manage small crowded noisy places. There is no way he could manage a coach for 24hours!

I think the difference between primary and secondary trips though is that usually the whole year group goes on the year 6 residential whereas only a small percentage of children go on the extra curricula trips run by secondary.

When he did the day trip to London museum he had 1:2 with another lad with Sen. We did social stories and planned every eventuality.
What I hadn't noted was the glass lift! Of course school new but didn't know about ds anxieties over them.
So he got in - got to top - had a wobble about going back in to go down. There is no stairs. So the teacher had to get museum staff who took them all around the back corridors to get back down again.
Teacher emailed me as agreed as they got on coach to say how the day had gone.
I met them off the coach with wine and chocolates for her saying she'd probably need them to recover!

i would never take a child on a residential who i couldn't trust would respond to instructions

Where are the 'reasonable' adjustments in that statement? That looks like a blanket policy.

enterthedragon:

How are you meant to make adjustments for a child who can't comply with instructions given in a safety briefing? Things like 'do t wander off' or 'don't jump in the water'. No level of supervision short of physical restraint is going to work with some kids.

Both of those eventualities could be covered by proper supervision with instructions not to take the child near water etc. Face if, teenagers can't be relied on to comply with instructions all the time anyway, a school that doesn't factor that into its risk assessments shouldn't be taking them out.

Ceto:

No, they can't be. If the child has no specific tendency to jump into water, how are you meant to plan for that? It is ridiculous to think any amount of supervision can keep a child safe in a risky environment who can't comply with instructions with at least a reasonable level of consistency. I would refuse to do it.

Are they planning to undertake a risk assessment with you involved in the process? In my opinion that is what they should be doing?

This is simple. Under the Equality Act, They may not give him less favourable treatment' for reasons related to his disability. Blanket banning from a school trip is less favourable treatment', definitely. They must make reasonable adjustments. These can be negotiated, and might include an alternative means of transportation to the venue, extra staff in his group etc. The school budget is completely irrelevant, that is why the adjustments are negotiable.
Go to inclusivechoice.com and print out some sample letters. They are in clear breech of discrimination legislation and they need stopping.