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.

Those teachers on this thread saying they would simply refuse to take a child; where that child has difficulties that are diagnosed as part of a disability, that is in breach of the act and you could end up in court.

oldbirdy you are absolutely correct. A meeting to assess risk and to decide how best to meet his needs in the context of the trip etc with parents/carers included has to take place. I am a teacher and am surprised by some responses here tbh.

old is right, I said similar at the beginning. They are given the resources to find a way to make it safe for him. It's the school's responsibility, the only responsibility the parent has at this moment is to be sure that the school have an excellent understanding of the Equalities Act, and to make damn sure that they implement it.

oldbirdy:

I don't care if I end up in court. I am not obligated to go on a residential trip. And in a situation where I wasn't sure I could keep a child safe, having considered reasonable adjustments that could be made, I would not take that child. They would have to sue me.

@Oldbirdy

Not sure a school can end up in court because teachers refused to volunteer to take a trip.

I'm absolutely certain that any school that attempted to force teachers to work extra unpaid hours by being oncall 24/7, especially if they state that they are not confident in their ability to keep all children under their care safe would be sued into oblivion by the staff concerned and hung out to dry by the department of education and the unions.

I'm a brownie leader and each residential consists of me starting a risk assessment with the first two risks being death of a girl, then leader with serious injury as the third.

We have two girls with sn but it involves a lot of planning and the ability to draft in an external mate to cover while one of us does 1:2:1 with them.

If we have no extra help or not listening was a risk, they would not come on our trips or residentials. The key word in the legislation is 'reasonable'. Any commissioner overriding my decision would either take the trip themselves or I'd cancel it. I'm not living for the rest of my life with the consequences if I know going in that I truly couldn't safely manage the situation.

Trifle, special schools that have many children such as you have described, manage to take them on residentials.

Special schools have a much higher ratio of adults to children and would not be booking a generic school trip package with a PGL type place.

Spikeyball:

I would say the same if I worked in a non-mainstream setting. Unless I was confident I could keep my charges safe, I would not be taking them. Full stop.

But they don't need to restrain chidren all the the time, which is what Trifle seems to think is the only way of managing those children.

Thankfully you are in a mainstream setting.

Spikeyball:

That isn't what I said at all. I said there are some children who, short of being restrained, won't follow instructions at crucial times. I am not prepared to restrain children unless it is unavoidable (emergency). If I knew a child would likely need to be restrained to stop him or her doing something dangerous, I wouldn't take them away overnight.

Spikeyball:

Why thankfully?

oldbirdy This is not about blanket banning - of course that is illegal. This is about an issue arising late in the day which may call for adjustments which it is not reasonable to expect at such short notice. An obvious example is staff levels.

There is a reason why the adjective "reasonable" is there: some adjustments which might have the desired effect are nevertheless not reasonable. One of the criteria is cost: you are wrong in saying the school budget is "irrelevant". Another is the impact on others: not just the staff, the other children.

I know it's hard but some things are doable but only with advance planning, and some things are not doable at all.

If teachers refuse to volunteer all the stroppy letters in the world won't make them as Becles says.

If we do refuse to take DCs it's for their safety as well as the safety of others. It's not discrimination to not want them hurt or lost.

This is a child who has managed to get (nearly) to the end of year 6 in a mainstream school with no additional support. He doesn't sound like a child that would meet the criteria for 1 to 1 support in any case - becoming stressed because of the SATS and all the changes that SATS bring should have been anticipated by the SENCO months ago.
If his anxiety triggers behaviour which is dangerous/unpredictable presumably this would have been addressed at the time of booking the trip. Why wasn't it?

I also agree with spikyball's comment.

Old...teachers volunteered!!!! Seriously if they dont no one goes. So glad im not a teacher.

Where is this school?! Have they never had a kid with SEN before? Refusing to go inside and waving a stick around would barely raise an eyebrow at any of the schools I've taught at. Quite literally half of our Year 6 last year had some kind of additional need and their behaviour was absolutely appalling. They had a fabulous residential trip as they had staff who understood them and their needs, cared about them and had built relationships. No one would have dreamt of excluding any of them from it.

bigmack If his behaviour has deteriorated since the booking there may be nothing else for the school to do.They cannot overlook the needs and rights of the other children, let alone the staff.

This school is in clear breach because it is refusing to engage in anticipatory planning and has threatened a blanket ban to a disabled student.
It is true that the need for reasonable adjustments can be overridden by health and safety, but not in the absence of efforts to make adjustments, and the law is clear that elimination of all risk is not necessary.

Some posters seem angry about this, but it is the law.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/257&ved=0ahUKEwjlgrvSzrjTAhWKb1AKHcb1D7UQFgg8MAY&usg=AFQjCNHYsbwVEGJ4_qG2LXj0uBoPXApawA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/257&ved=0ahUKEwjlgrvSzrjTAhWKb1AKHcb1D7UQFgg8MAY&usg=AFQjCNHYsbwVEGJ4_qG2LXj0uBoPXApawA

His behaviour is triggered by anxiety. The trigger for that anxiety will have passed before the trip commences.

oldbirdy:

Well I am certainly not angry about it. I am happy to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate any disability. If, having gone through this process, I remained concerned about the safety of that child or any other children because of the implications of taking that child, I wouldn't take them. If that meant me dropping out, so be it.

Andrew I meant that the budget is irrelevant to whether or not the school could refuse to consider adjustments, because reasonable adjustments need not be costly (eg day attendance, parent accompanying). They must engage in consideration of adjustments, and to be honest they should have done so as soon as this lad's disability was identified. I don't think doing no planning then saying he can't go and refusing to meet parents in a timely fashion to discuss it is defensible.

And who knows what might trigger anxiety and further such behaviour, bigmack?

oldbirdy They seem to have done their planning but it has been overtaken by events very near the date. Suppose they decide - reasonably and properly - that one more teacher is needed to make the trip and no volunteer is forthcoming? Just what are they supposed to do? As others have said no teacher can be forced to do it and a teacher who says No cannot be sued - and even if s/he could it would be a bit late for the trip.

"Reasonable" means what it says and does not mean "whatever it takes"!

trifle that is all that is asked. I can't see that refusing to go into class one day and waving a stick about - when presumably since he has got to year 6 with no support because most of the time he is manageable - justifies the actions of the school in this instance. The school must consider how to accommodate him so as to avoid less favourable treatment'. That is the law.

oldbirdy:

I am well aware of the law. I am not commenting on the specific situation here. I am commenting on the idea held by some posters that it is illegal to refuse to take a disabled child on a trip. It isn't.