about those on the autistic spectrum in mainstream schools?

[OverbearingHouseSitter]

Basically I've read so many threads recently about those on the autistic spectrum being completely let down by teachers and senior staff in schools.

I mean punishing those on the autistic spectrum in incidents when it is entirely inappropriate, and the lack of understanding of some teachers that you cannot use the same behaviour strategies on some children who require a different approach due to SEN.

And then there are times when punishment should not be given at all, such as when a child who is on the autistic spectrum behaving in a way that the teacher doesn't like, yet the teacher not seeming to realise that this behaviour is part of their SEN!

My mother was a teacher and I realise how hard being a teacher is. She got signed off sick with stress... it's a bloody hard job. But AIBU to think that some teachers and school staff- NOT all- seem to be consistently failing those on the autistic spectrum and those with other SEN, whatever these may be?

This is not just from this forum either! There have been instances from people I know I've heard about and with friends kids.

For example, a friends child was recently punished as he did not understand something the teacher said, ie, it was some form of light sarcasm the teacher used, friends DS with SEN did not register this, did what the teacher told the pupils sarcastically not to do and was then mortified and confused when the teacher punished him.

So AIBU?

I also apologise if I have used an language around people with special needs that you do not like/prefer not to use. My friend prefers the term "on the autistic spectrum" opposed to "autistic child" but if I have said anything wrong please tell me!

If we really had inclusion, mainstream schools would have adopted many of the stand-out features of special schools - particularly small class sizes and higher adult:child ratios.

It is really not all about high adult child ratios. This varies according to need and how a classroom is organised. It might seem easier for teachers to have more staff however it does not necessarily benefit those children who have been diagnosed with additional needs.

My DC benefitted when the individual funding for a 1 to 1 and hence the 1 to 1 was removed. All too often 1 to 1s are used to allow segregation and effectively 'babysit' rather than teach. The child in question receives less quality teaching. Yes, this is terrible practice but was common place when my DC was at primary.

I fully appreciate additional staff can be put to better use. However if additional staff mean classroom organisation and successful teaching methods are not evaluated effectively or additional staff are used to reduce the need for proper differentiation, then they are potentially detrimental to the quality of education as a whole.

teach. The child in question receives less quality teaching

Absolutly not!

The teacher plans and reviews the work set/completed TA and teachers discuss different methods ans strategies and rotate so each lesson is a mixture it TA led Teacher led and independent work

A decent teacher can coordinate and plan effectively

Green

Absolutly not!

It can and has happened. In my own and other people's experiences.

The teacher plans and reviews the work set/completed TA and teachers discuss different methods ans strategies and rotate so each lesson is a mixture it TA led Teacher led and independent work

This is maybe what happens in your experience but was not the type of provision my own DC received. It was a difficult issue, for myself as a parent, to tackle and took years to sort out.

A decent teacher can coordinate and plan effectively

'Decent' being the operative word...

My point is, TAs can be used to mask ineffective teaching. TAs are used to segregate children who are not coping with inadequate provision, as this reduces the disruptive impact. Any lack of progression is put down to a child's additional needs rather than the effectiveness and quality of provision.

That is something that will differ from child to child and school to school though.

In Ds case the ta means he can access the same curriculum as his peers, she sits with him and supports him in class - breaking down work set by the teacher helping to keep him focused etc.

The only time he is removed from the class (other than sensory breaks which are planned in) is for his "therapy" sessions.

In DS case the TA very much helps to integrate him into the classrooms rather than segregate him from it.

In really great special schools, communication time between the adults in the classroom is timetabled in - not some add-on, that is squashed in between lesson-time, or taken out of people's own time. That allows for differentiated, even different, activities to be run concurrently in small groups. It's quite rare to find mainstream schools that can genuinely afford to provide that. It should be something we pay for as a society.

A high adult:child ration does not have to mean a "velcro", untrained, TA substituting for teaching or effectively "managing behaviour by withdrawal from the classroom".

Sirzy, I appreciate that. My initial point was in response to this from thecat

If we really had inclusion, mainstream schools would have adopted many of the stand-out features of special schools - particularly small class sizes and higher adult:child ratios.

I don't think inclusion is, necessarily simply about adopting high adult child ratios. This feature can be used in a way that can hinder or help. Really, IMO, the pertinent feature of inclusion involves, being flexible in approach, being responsive to, often changing needs and listening to others who have observed and know the child. Not being adversarial.

One of the biggest barriers to a child's learning IMO is professional one upmanship between stakeholders and the politicalisation of teaching, whereby the need to curtail workload, prevents any suggestion of changes to current practice getting off the ground (even though they might be very successful and time effective) and results in offence been taken because teaching is a difficult job.

In most schools, the child with an ECHP and designated funding for a 1:1 will be outnumbered by children with non-EHCP SENDs, which is one reason that extra adults, whose training and expertise is taken seriously, should be a standard - not something that is being cut back.

However this results in an extremely complicated situation, if it is the dedicated individual i funding, from a child's ECHP, which is entirely funding that TA. When that TA is utilised in making provision for children, other than the child who is named on the ECHP. If the provision on the ECHP paperwork is not altered to reflect this, the named child's needs are distorted. The ECHP claims to give provision the child is not fully receiving.

Someone upthread said that their child with SEN needed a higher proportion of the teacher's time. This means that other children will lose out by having students with SEN in the classroom. What should be said is that the child with SEN needs a higher amount of teacher time, therefore class sizes should be reduced correspondingly, or an additional adult be in the room.

What should be said is that the child with SEN needs a higher amount of teacher time, therefore class sizes should be reduced correspondingly, or an additional adult be in the room.

My DC didn't need a higher amount or proportion of teacher time. They didn't receive much of this either. More thoughtful differentiation, or teaching methodology, perhaps. However this a moot point, since there is no quantifiable standard. Perhaps my DC did not have additional needs, after all. Perhaps differing needs should not be termed as additional....

Thoughtful differentiation/different resources or more careful planning all require extra teacher time.

And are part of a teacher's professional stamdards.

Thoughtful differentiation/different resources or more careful planning all require extra teacher time.

Yes, but the perception is that children with SEN impact detrimentally on other's without SENs education. Which suggests a higher proportion/amount of contact time. And surely thoughtful differentiation should be a de facto standard? Responsive teaching is what good quality teaching is all about. It benefits every child. Not just those with SEN. This doesn't necessarily involve reinventing the wheel every time, either, skills can be honed, experiences and expertise shared.

Not my perception incidental, regarding the perceived detriment.

Incidentally! Typo.

Sadly a lot seems to come down to what I said here:

the politicalisation of teaching, whereby the need to curtail workload, prevents any suggestion of changes to current practice getting off the ground (even though they might be very successful and time effective) and results in offence been taken because teaching is a difficult job.

It doesn't matter if they're part of the teacher's standards if the teacher doesn't physically have the time to discharge them effectively.

One student in the class requiring thoughtful differentiation is fair enough, but when you have 15 all with different requirements?

Of course thoughtful differentiation should be a standard teaching practice for all children, but I can see why some teachers who are doing everything within their power in the current system, with a fully supportive slt behind them, still might not be able to fully meet the needs of every dc.

One student in the class requiring thoughtful differentiation is fair enough, but when you have 15 all with different requirements?

Nothing has, throughout time, changed here. There could be 15 NT children with different requirements. At least you have a 'heads up' with a child who has been diagnosed with SENs. I can see that rigid observation requirements, which conflict with optimism teaching to needs, as mentioned upthread, today, can throw a spanner in the works, though. This should be challenged.

That is, it is not having children with SENs in mainstream, that is the problem. Not having a system which allows for flexibility and responsiveness is.

Optimal not optimism. Typo!

Nothing has, throughout time, changed here

Things have massively changed, even in the decade I've been teaching. Apart from the closure of special schools, the expectations on teachers have increased massively, while at the same time we have increasing class sizes, increasing workload and TAs have been laid off on a massive scale.

I meant in terms of children having differing needs.

Relegating all those with additional needs to Special School does not change this. It just diverts the problems differing needs can produce onto the Specialist Providers. We end up with more of a range of needs in that sector instead. All that happens is Mainstream specialises further.

It's very interesting to see all these posts from non-combatants giving their advice to professional educators. Here is the reality.

I did a day's supply at a Primary school last year (Y5 class, very nice kids). One kid in the class (Autistic) spent the whole day talking very loudly across anything that I or any other child was saying. Because I wore a black jacket he spent most of the day claiming at 100+ decibels that I was a vampire and drawing endless pictures of me with fangs etc. In another context it would have been very funny actually. He had a TA with him but the TA was frankly useless. The other kids were very understanding, but at one point I had to ask the TA to occupy him outside for 15-20 minutes so that the rest of the class could focus on a rather demanding task.

Now, the question is this - whose rights are more important? The rights of the parents of the kid who clearly can't cope in a mainstream school and should be elsewhere for his own good and everyone else's? What about the rights of the other kids, who spent the whole day struggling to make themselves heard and to hear what I was saying when I was helping them? They were so nice and friendly and patient and understanding, a real credit to their parents, but I felt that I hadn't been able to help them anywhere near as much as would have been the case without this constant barrage of noise.

Sorry, but in my world the needs of the 29 count for more than the needs of the 1. We have created a world in which the tail wags the dog. If we were not a relatively rich country with apparently money to spare to pay for this waste (a TA for one kid for the whole day!) then a more sensible way to meet everyone's needs would have to be found. They're called (or used to be called) Special Schools. And they worked.

Sorry folks but some of you just aren't living in the real world on this one.

Relegating all those with additional needs to Special School

I didn't say relegate them all to a special school, I said give teachers more time/smaller classes in response to increased expectations. Given the amount of teachers that are leaving over workload issues, telling teachers they should be doing more work and catering more effectively for students with SEN with increasing class sizes and less support isn't going to work. We can't do it.