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!

By teacher lacking and colluding, please note I mean some. And really, a defensiveness attitude contributes to collusion. It promotes an us and them mentality.

Great. As long as this is noted in all the paperwork. That the child in question's needs, have genuinely progressed, in that they are able to cope with small groups not 1 to 1. That provision maps show less resource had been utilised solely on them. That the individualised funding, saved on this, is utilised, constructively, elsewhere for the child who is entitled to it. If this does not happen the child's needs needs/progress becomes distorted.

The group activity wouldn't be happening under the eye of the TA without the child in need of support. It is entirely for that child's benefit. The rest of your point becomes pointless. The resources are being used where a professional believes they should be used.

You seem to think teachers have lots of time for endless record keeping and note making, they don't. Sometimes it's necessary to trust those trained in the job to know what they are doing and not tie them up with yet more bureaucracy.

and child b who needs quiet & order?

At one point all my DC needed was telling that they need to ignore disruption and let teachers sort it out. From my discussion with them, and how they have the ability to ignore (e.g. When watching something on TV and many other real life instances) and how they don't have to take responsibility for sorting out others who are misbehaving, how this can make things more difficult for the teacher. I did this as soon as I found out teachers had just sent my DC out of class to get some quiet and said they could go out whenever they wanted (missing parts of lessons) They did not need this, they just needed to acknowledge they could safely ignore disruption, that they had the ability to do this, that the teacher would and could sort it out disruption, without their input and they should just carry on with their work.

I demonstrated, with examples, how the perpetrators of disruption are clearer for the teacher to see when the victims remain quiet. It worked.

Some of the work DS 1-1 does with him is in small groups. One intervention in particular is one to develop his social communication skills so doing it 1-1 with just him and a TA wouldn’t help develop the skills that SALT have set as a target. The other pupils he does it with are ones with will benefit from the intervention too but only DS has 1-1 so it makes sense for her to lead it.

Having worked as a 1-1 TA most of the time even when doing small group work the reason you are leading that group is because it is most beneficial for the student you are doing 1-1 for at that point. Having the 1-1 and another adult at that point would be a waste of resources!

The group activity wouldn't be happening under the eye of the TA without the child in need of support. It is entirely for that child's benefit. The rest of your point becomes pointless. The resources are being used where a professional believes they should be used.

This needs to be shown in a provision map. If a child works well in a group of 8, or larger, for the majority or whole of their time at school, with the TA interacting and supporting other children (as will happen, I have taught and observed) their needs have progressed from not needing full time 1 to 1 support. One to 8 costs significantly less than 1 to 1.

Sometimes it's necessary to trust those trained in the job to know what they are doing and not tie them up with yet more bureaucracy.

And sometimes it really is not. My DC would have continued to receive treatment detrimental to the quality of education if I had. As it is I challenged and won and it has paid off.

In fact it was clear my DC was placed in groups just because they had a designated 1 to 1, paid for by their individual funding. These groups consisted solely of children with children with vastly differing abilities and competing and conflicting additional needs. At one point my DC, who was reading and understanding what was read proficiently and fluently, at preschool, was placed alongside children with significant reading difficulties. They were all reading books from the same level my child had been given in reception. The book's content was not even geared towards their age group. My child was baffled, ashamed and embarrassed.

^this was halfway through juniors.

One intervention in particular is one to develop his social communication skills so doing it 1-1 with just him and a TA wouldn’t help develop the skills that SALT have set as a target. The other pupils he does it with are ones with will benefit from the intervention too but only DS has 1-1 so it makes sense for her to lead it.

This sounds like it is a planned, clearly documented intervention. Which is not what I am objecting to.

pondering that doesn't answer my question. That only works with dc who have behaviours/ reactions that can be massively improved with strategies. Some dc can't just learn to keep quiet or still, and some can't just learn to cope with noise and a lack of routine. For many, just coping when it's calm, or when they can self regulate with noise will be a struggle by itself.

Ear defenders might help the noise, but then again if they also block the teacher trying to teach, they aren't going to work. And I can't imagine that most parents would be impressed if their already struggling dc was further isolated from both the teacher and their peers all day everyday. Because the parents of the quiet child won't be privy to the causes of the loud child, they'll probably just think it is the teacher unable to manage the nt class loudmouth.

So what do you do if one/both of those dc don't fall conveniently into the group of autistic children who can learn self management with the right strategies?

Let alone when you consider that realistically the other 28 won't all be nt kids with needs that don't require any individual class time.

Lurked I gave some possible solutions from the top of my head. Any could work. I don't know the specific children involved, have not access to their records, so I cannot make a detailed plan.

If a child works well in a group of 8, or larger, for the majority or whole of their time at school, with the TA interacting and supporting other children (as will happen, I have taught and observed) their needs have progressed from not needing full time 1 to 1 support. One to 8 costs significantly less than 1 to 1.

Who mentioned the whole time? Maybe a couple of times a week with perhaps 3 other DCs. How are we to know if a DC has progressed to being able to work with others if we don't allow them to practice and test it out? The 1 to 1 is there entirely for the benefit of the child with SNs.

with a post that pointed out she was admitting to not being able to teach since tackling SENs is a non negotiable part of teaching.

That's nonsense. Of course I can teach. Total bollocks to say I can't teach. Just like it's total bollocks to say that someone who can't manage 30 different needs is in the wrong job.

What would be more appropriate to say is that if someone who is an experienced, capable and hardworking teacher is struggling to effectively manage a class and teach each individual student effectively because of the varied needs of the class and constraints of the classroom, then something is wrong with the system. Funding, training, support, possibly even unmanageable educational and social expectations from being in a large mainstream secondary. Not that the teacher can't teach, because that is very easy to read as teacher-blaming, on a thread that is already full of teacher-blaming.

Who mentioned the whole time? Maybe a couple of times a week with perhaps 3 other DCs.

If this is documented, the specifics can be determined.

How are we to know if a DC has progressed to being able to work with others if we don't allow them to practice and test it out?

What is the point of testing if the results are not consistently documented?

The 1 to 1 is there entirely for the benefit of the child with SNs.

Except when they're not.

Not that the teacher can't teach, because that is very easy to read as teacher-blaming, on a thread that is already full of teacher-blaming.

Well, it is, if that teacher is defensive from the outset.

Neither do I, it was an example. To illustrate that some teachers are in situations where it is physically impossible to meet the needs of all.

Look up any thread on here that contains disabilism. I guarantee you'll find quite a few parents who state that no matter what they do, they can't simply teach their child to be quieter/ calmer in public. And just as many from parents who on the other hand can't teach their dc to manage the sensory overload of many public places/ some other people. So unless you presume those parents just haven't tried the right strategies, and their dc can 'learn' then how is a teacher meant to act in the best interests of both at the same time?

Well, it is, if that teacher is defensive from the outset.

You think that someone being told that they can't do their job isn't going to be defensive or find that annoying?

You think that someone being told that they can't do their job isn't going to be defensive or find that annoying?

I suspect you were annoyed well before that point. Me too. Hence my somewhat brusque posting style, at times.

I guarantee you'll find quite a few parents who state that no matter what they do, they can't simply teach their child to be quieter/ calmer in public. And just as many from parents who on the other hand can't teach their dc to manage the sensory overload of many public places/ some other people.

I can't possibly comment without specifics. I can talk about my own lived experiences which have formed the majority of my posts. I can talk about the undesirability of system which affords no inclusion for SENs. And how this would be a system which is no easier for teachers.

I don't think the issue is being easier for teachers, but fair for all the children. Of course your children's needs take priority for you, but a teacher must prioritise 30 children's needs and sometimes that is not possible if they are forced to spread themselves too thin and have to spend all their time managing behaviour rather than actually teaching.

It wouldn't be fair for all the children either, IMO, Luminaries. I wrote this earlier, re increasing the Specialist School sector:

Not if this sector was increased to include every type of SEN. Which some people seem to think the solution is.

What you would get is more segregation, between different types of need. More specialism. Less fluidity and flexibility, as any progress in needs would have to be accommodated at a different type of school.

The Mainstream sector would specialise in catering to a narrow band of NT needs. The class sizes there would probably increase. They would receive less funding. Teachers here would have less training and lower wages. Because, well, NT children are perceived as so much easier to educate.

Does that sound fairer on children?

"What you would get is more segregation, between different types of need. More specialism. Less fluidity and flexibility, as any progress in needs would have to be accommodated at a different type of school."

Some parents of children with asd do want very specialist settings. Those settings often cater better for individual needs.

I don't think anyone has said the best, or only alternative is more ss for all children with Sen. Most people agree that ss provision should be increased so they are available for the dc who do need them. Rather than parents having to fight for it, and even if they win it can be a long travel time, or a suitable ss so far away they can't access it.

But for most kids the solution is making ms more accessible, and funding is the first, and arguably biggest hurdle.

(exception is musicman but he should be ignored anyway, bless him)

Does that sound fairer on children?

Is it not fairer for NT children who get to come in, sit down and work in a calm, quiet classroom? Of course NT children are easier to teach.

There are pros and cons of every system and no-one will see the same pros and cons either.

For example, about five years ago I taught a little boy with complex physical needs. Academically, he was totally in line with mainstream children. However, physically he simply wasn't. I found it very hard to know when to push him to write, walk or stretch, as I didn't have the medical knowledge needed. PE was a difficult time trying to balance including him and let the others develop their own physical skills. Playtime was hard for him as the others were football mad and he couldn't play.

In a specialised environment, there would be more knowledge about his medical needs. Playtimes may not have been as difficult for him.

Spikey I understand that. However I was talking about increasing the Specialist Sector massively, as is what would have to happen if every type of additional need was catered for in Special School. This appears to be what some posters are suggesting what should happen. My post details what that realistically could look like. Proportionately more teachers would end up teaching in that sector than they do now too. Thing is children with SENs will not just disappear, they need to be educated. Having a larger Specialist Sector does not reduce the need for provision, it just diverts that provision. And segregates society. Local schools would be a thing of the past for many many children.