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!

I've seen a tendency on MN for posters to immediately leap to arguing against extremes when something is challenged. Kid doesn't like quinoa and salad for a play date snack and you think that was unreasonable to serve up? Next time I'll just feed them McDonalds then. You like a school with a really strict behaviour code? Let's just let them all run feral then and see how you like that.
Kids with SEN not being well catered for in mainstream and you're struggling to teach them all? You obviously want to pack them all off to special school.

No, but dialing back on unrealistic expectations of class teachers and looking at what actually might help individuals while acknowledging that every child has the right to an education is a middle way that surely can be agreed on.

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

If the Specialist Sector is increased those NT children would be shoved into schools with less resources, larger classes, teachers who have less training and are paid less. Because that is what would realistically happen. Because, as you say, NT children are easier to teach....

Btw I don't think they necessarily are. Not NT needs may be different but not necessarily more difficult to cater for. Although sometimes they are. I say this as a parent of a DC who has had some additional needs.

You obviously want to pack them all off to special school.

I'm pleased you don't noble.

I would genuinely support higher wages for teachers in specialist schools. More training and small classes are a given.

Balfe, children such as the child you described, don't need to go to special school. Physical adaptions and staff training are enough. Sending that child to special school would be segregation.

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.

And I have not argued against that.

and funding is the first, and arguably biggest hurdle.

Except when individualised funding has been obtained and utilised elsewhere, not on the child it has been awarded to. Don't forget this point! Talk of 'lack of funding' is particularly galling to the significant parents who have had experiences like my own. Attitudes are important.

I would genuinely support higher wages for teachers in specialist schools

Even if this was funded through dropping wages and the amount of training in a reduced mainstream sector? I can easily imagine this is what would happen.

Significant number of parents. Typo omission! (Not that I'm insignificant)

dropping wages and the amount of training in a reduced mainstream sector?

They can't drop wages any further than they already have done and reducing training from 1 hour to 0 hours will hardly make a big difference.

noble

Really? Can't they? There are already untrained staff, as in not having a proper teaching degree, in mainstream schools teaching. There would be more of this in a reduced, more specialised mainstream. They would, of course, be less renumeration for them.

Class sizes would also probably increase. As per Victorian times (40 to 50 in a class)

I don't think class sizes would be so big. Probably 35-40.

PGDE/BEd should still be the minimum to teach. PGDE/BEd plus Masters in a specialist unit.

We've had 5 years of pay cuts and when the pay review body recommended 1% again this year as they were told to by the government, the review body said that this will significantly impact on schools' ability to recruit and retain teachers.

Yes there are already untrained staff in schools, but this is not acceptable, and I don't think that the majority of parents would be happy to have their kids taught by teachers who don't know what they are doing subject-wise or teaching-wise, just like parents of kids with SEN wouldn't be/aren't happy to have their kids taught by teachers who don't know what they're doing SEN-wise. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the solution, when Peter is already skint.

You can't increase class sizes when they can't fit in a classroom, and the government is too tight to spend money on new school buildings. I can fit 34 in my classroom, and no more.

I don't think class sizes would be so big. Probably 35-40.

PGDE/BEd should still be the minimum to teach. PGDE/BEd plus Masters in a specialist unit

Can you imagine that in a school that only catered to a narrow band of NT children and no additional needs, at all Balfe. Years ago, before inclusion, teachers did 2 years of 'Teacher Training'.

Yes there are already untrained staff in schools, but this is not acceptable,

I never said anything about increasing the Specialist Sector, so no additional needs were catered for in Mainstream, being acceptable. It is clearly the opposite of acceptable.

And who knows what would happen to school buildings for this type of reorganisation...

Can you imagine that in a school that only catered to a narrow band of NT children and no additional needs, at all Balfe. Years ago, before inclusion, teachers did 2 years of 'Teacher Training'.

What problems do you see with that? I don't see the point you're making.

Thinking of my school, there are 3-4 children per year group (between 2 and 3 form entry) who would probably be better suited to specialist schooling. That ratio is more or less the same as most places I've taught in over the past couple of years. Definitely not enough children to make a huge difference to sizes.

Thinking of my school, there are 3-4 children per year group (between 2 and 3 form entry) who would probably be better suited to specialist schooling.

Oh, I got the impression there were more, from your posts, Balfe.

That shows how 3 or 4 children can make a huge difference to class dynamics.

What problems do you see with that? I don't see the point you're making

The problem is, since there are such a high proportion of needs which are deemed additional (talking about Mainstream not catering to any additional needs), that huge numbers of children would be placed in Specialist Settings. This would require a huge educational overhaul and for what? New schools catering to varying degrees and type of additional need. Less fluidity and flexibility regarding progression in needs. And a more segregated society. Schools would not be local, they would be allocated according to needs (which might evolve and change)

I don't think class sizes would be so big. Probably 35-40.

Even if you only had NT children there will be a massive range of ability in any class, 40 is a massive class, add in that with the extra pay for special schools there would be even less money for TA's in mainstream, giving the teacher less support.

Sorry, I'm late to this thread and only got to about 10 pages in so far but just in case this hasn't been asked of Viva: What exactly is it about the children with diagnoses that you see and think they've been misdiagnosed?

I'm HFA and my DM was also a HT (state school, rural setting and she taught a class at the same time). Because she carried the structure of her work life into our home and I was academically fine, I didn't begin to struggle until the social politics of secondary school and as soon as I hit college and had to do my work of my own volition I nosedived and turned to drugs. Had I had some support in FE I could've achieved the much-anticipated Oxbridge place I was always pegged for, or at the very least, music college.

I actually taught FE for a couple of years before the rules about needing to have PGCE quals came in and I had one entire class in what was called a 'second chance college' that all had significant SEN. I was given no training at all, let alone training in how to support students who were either on the Spectrum, or couldn't speak more than a few words of English. I had to physically separate adult-sized people as they threw punches and design new ways to assess a student who couldn't deal with role-plays.

I feel sad for the potential wasted frankly because now employers are beginning to realise that people with ASC are often capable of amazing innovation and started to look for them specifically. If schools cannot provide for children in order to give them the skills to get into work then this new move towards inclusion will be all for nought.

pondering I've not disagreed that funding can be misappropriated by some schools, or that it can be done with bad intentions. I just also think some schools do it on a smaller scale with good intentions for all simply because they don't have the cash.

Dd was on pp throughout primary, and it was only the last couple of years that she had anything from it. If she'd been in the normal range she'd not have got anything from it. Which was more than fine, because she didn't need it. When you look at what they spent it on, most went on things that supported low achievers and Sen. And not all the Sen dc were pp, and not all the pp dc had Sen or were the lowest achievers.

Now that worked out just fine, the pp kids who had need of extra got more, as did the dc with Sen. A high % of Sen meant more floating resources, and high pp % meant more funding. Without that, I could easily see the same staff having to take from one child/ group to give another, as it is the least worse option. The problem isn't just getting funding for the named child, it's about the lack of funding in general. Because the result of that is that there is nothing for the dc who are awaiting dx, or who supposedly don't meet the criteria for funding.

I just also think some schools do it on a smaller scale with good intentions for all simply because they don't have the cash.

I'm fine with funding being reallocated, as long as it is done 'by the book' and provision maps reflect this.

PP is different to individualised Statemented or ECHP funding as it is automatic and not directly apportioned to need. To maintain a child has additional need but not utilise the allocated resource for that need, yet claiming in the paperwork you have, distorts actual needs. If the child copes very well with reduced provision then their needs have progressed. If not, but the reduced provision is not detailed it suggests their needs have worsened when they have not or might have not had provision been made for them. PP is allocated according to having parents with low income. The child in question might actually have no additional need. However reallocation of PP funds to non PP groups of children should be noted. As it distorts the needs of children that qualify for PP, as a group.

Because the result of that is that there is nothing for the dc who are awaiting dx, or who supposedly don't meet the criteria for funding.

Schools are supposed to allocate part of their budget towards low level SENs which do not require ECHPs. It is up to them how much. This amount is not ring fenced. I would really like to see statistics which show how much schools are allocating for this and how much is spent on other things.

I know how pp works. And her school weren't misusing it imo. If you have a few dc that are underachieving because of background, it makes no odds to them if you also add a few dc who are underachieving due to Sen to a group targeted at them.

Ditto broader use. I wasn't the only pp parent who had the means to pay for school trips. If a consequence of that was another pp dc got kitted out to go, and the school could meet the extra costs of making sure the dc with complex needs could attend and enjoy it, that to me is an excellent use.

Using it to pay for staff to write detailed notes on why my, and some other dc didn't have any of the additional problems associated with pp would not be constructive, either to schools pupils or any of the majority of pp dc in the country who do need it to narrow attainment gaps. The required published records do broadly mention how it was used for high achievers, but if they'd accurately reported what they did for dd it would have been very identifying.

Again, on funding I don't think it's that simple. Lots of parents aren't in a position to advocate for their dc or push for dx & the support that should go with it. This is a deprived area, and many dc at dd's only got a dx, let alone echps because the school were proactive.

Nobody thinks it's easy if you're equipped to negotiate the system. But if you're not, it's even more likely you'll be ignored by professionals. Which means when your dc goes to school, there is zilch in place. Or their high level Sen is judged as low level and a consequence of your economic status and therefore shit parenting. Schools can ring fence a reasonable %, but if their starting pot isn't big enough, neither will that % be.