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!

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.

Schools do make provision maps. I'm just asking that they are accurate. I'm not asking for anything additional.

PP audits are also commissioned. I've seen examples of what happens here. These do go into more detail, not regarding specific children but regarding how PP is targeted and allocated to need, the outcomes of specific activities, detailed costings and which sectors benefitted from PP funding.

This is necessary to determine which provision is most effective, and value for money.

Schools can ring fence a reasonable %, but if their starting pot isn't big enough, neither will that % be.

If costings were more transparent and widely published it could be more easily determined where this is the case.

ponderingprobably

Schools are required to post their funding and budget for each year.

I know Boney, I've seen them. However, if I recall correctly, SEN spends are not recorded in great detail. It is a while since I looked, though.

Maybe I was looking in the wrong place. Have you a link, Boney?

I think it was the Schools Census data, I looked at last.

ponderingprobably

Looking at the .gov website they only show general data or spending per pupil.

The schools own website maybe more helpful, but I think for a complete breakdown of SEND spending you would have to request it from the school under the FOI.

Makes sense, Boney. I don't particularly need to now, apart from being able to develop a fully informed opinion.

Politically, that is. I'm happy with my own DC's education at the moment.

The radio this morning was highlighting that 40% of children who's Mums were on sodium valproate while pg are autistic as a result.
Sodium Valproate is an anti epileptic - there is a strong correlation between epilepsy and autism spectrum disorders, so you would expect a higher percentage of autistic children to mothers who have epilepsy. I'm not saying it didn't cause some cases just that Correlation is not causation

I have met many children who I don't believe have significant SEN issues or any at all. Besides which, there's the basic argument that with it being a spectrum, at which point on it does a child get to use it as an excuse or reason for their behaviour and get significant extra money?
That could well include my DD. When everything is going fine she is high achieving and and has excellent behaviour. She doesn't get extra money, but does need a lot of understanding when things go wrong.

@Balfe I disagree that a masters makes you unit worthy. On paper qualifications do not a fantastic teacher make. I have worked with oxbridge grads who buckle very quickly. Those (in my experience) who are good teachers in units have life experience and some understand of Sen on a personal level.

Ihave met many children who I don't believe have significant SEN issues or any at all. Besides which, there's the basic argument that with it being a spectrum, at which point on it does a child get to use it as an excuse or reason for their behaviour and get significant extra money?

And when you've finished your medical training, done extra training as a paediatrician plus more training on top as a developmental paediatrician do let us know.

Because it SO easy to tell isn't it?

Daft, isn't it Delores?

Children with autism don't get excused for their behaviour either, at all.

The extra money is there (regarding behaviour) so individualised plans can be made to put in strategies to manage negative behaviours, prevent them and teach the child how to self manage, if possible. Because the usual strategies do not work for them.

So, extra provision seeks to problem solve. It is proactive. You could view it in the same light as how the provision of a discipline policy seeks to manage the behaviour of NT children. SEN provision involves just an alternative course of action. Funding is attached because resources are involved in making alternative provision. Inclusive policies sometimes can lower the need for alternative provision as they are suitable for those with disabilities too.

Put bluntly, as an analogy, if an (outdated) sanction, since the concern seems to be about behaviour, was to run round the school field and a pupil had malformed legs and couldn't run, there would need to be an alternative sanction. Alternative provision would have to be made.

I think where a child is on the spectrum, or a teacher is creative - these are all red herrings.

One big class - one teacher. It is NOT a good model for most SEN kids and also many nt kids who have challenges.

Every single school should have at least 2 small special units, headed by one teacher to six kids. Within the mainstream setting. There should also be a sensory room. Small soft play area. A few small calm room for one to one. Children could be half unit / half mainstream in many cases. Each child with any additional need has a robust individual plan.

Special schools can also be amazing. Although I'd always think that regular mainstream contact, even half a day a week, is beneficial if managed well as it opens up the silo and forces staff into higher expectations.

Banana, what data backs up your 'most'? My DC had some additional needs in primary, with significant individualised funding, yet now does not need or receive any additional provision or funding. SENs are a broad spectrum. Additional needs are also a moving goal post, they can progress.

Whilst the provision, you outline, would undoubtedly be good for some, there are also many with additional needs who do not need that kind of provision. For example, do children with hearing impairments need to be educated away from a mainstream classroom or would hearing aids and specialised sound systems be more appropriate? Do children with a degree of fine motor skills difficulties need to be educated away from the mainstream classroom or would pencil grips and keyboards help?

Yes, units in every school would be lovely. But not all SENs require separation and small group working. It is wrong to suggest they do.

But that's the problem pondering. With the best will in the world, not all dc can learn to self regulate to the extent that their behaviour is no longer a difficulty. For some, self regulating so they are not endangering themselves or others will be a huge achievement.

Others who can self regulate with the right strategies still might not manage it if another dc's strategies conflict with their own.

Plus for many dc intervention as soon as they become mildly distressed is crucial. If the teacher and the ta are occupied with something more urgent that second then that important window gets missed.

The schools and teachers with bad attitudes should of course be stamped on, but for the rest just telling the staff to crack on and deal with it isn't a solution. We need an overhaul of the system.

I've taught quite a few students with autism who have been fine in the classroom (or at least my classroom - maths, sitting in rows, no expectation of group work). But I've also taught students with ASD who have not been fine in my classroom. There's a danger of thinking 'well those kids are fine (have learned to self regulate) so we should expect these kids to be able to'. But we know it's a spectrum. We also know that some 'problematic' behaviours are the child trying to self-regulate. Stamp down on stimming and you risk creating a pressure-cooker.

With the best will in the world, not all dc can learn to self regulate to the extent that their behaviour is no longer a difficulty. For some, self regulating so they are not endangering themselves or others will be a huge achievement.

I fully appreciate this, but, please, do not deny this opportunity to the ones that can. It is life changing!

Plus for many dc intervention as soon as they become mildly distressed is crucial. If the teacher and the ta are occupied with something more urgent that second then that important window gets missed.

Again, I know this. However, as I said before SENs are a broad spectrum. Some children with SENs can actually build resilience if this is sensitively managed. Again, if they can, it is life changing.

but for the rest just telling the staff to crack on and deal with it isn't a solution.

I've not said this, anywhere. Merely pointed out, from my own knowledge and experiences, mistakes which have been made.

I do, however, have a pretty proactive and optimistic temperament regarding my DC. It is my coping mechanism. I consciously adopted it when my DC was undergoing assessments. Some educational professionals, IME, have found this difficult to deal with, it disarms them. I do not regret adopting this attitude, though, for one minute.

Of course ponder anyone with additional needs who is getting their best education in mainstream should remain in mainstream. All for that.

I think that this isn't the majority but I'm quite happy to be wrong, however what is wrong is putting sen in mainstream as a default. Without working with them in smaller units first to really get to know their needs, with a gradual change over into mainstream to suit them.

Also, to cross over back, have kids from mainstream without Sen who just need some more one to one and focused time, e.g, help with reading, to spend say half the week in a special say for a term.

Flexibility! At the moment there is very little. My son would fail in a mainstream class and that would not be the teachers fault. But perhaps in a few years, he could go half and half.

In an ideal world... instead I'm genuinely fearful for his future. He's bright but the choices don't fit him educationally.

Plus for many dc intervention as soon as they become mildly distressed is crucial. If the teacher and the ta are occupied with something more urgent that second then that important window gets missed.. Couldn't agree more.

I've got to know a lot of Sen children and most thrive on a different structure to a mainstream class. So it's not just 'managing their behaviour' effectively in a mainstream class - that behaviour is often the result of the set up being not suited. And too big class sizes is key.

For example, my son needs very simple language to be spoken to him.

• a teacher could not do this. I mean really simple. No understanding of questions.

My son needs a relative distraction free environment.

• not a mainstream classroom

My son needs very, very, low demands. That includes saying hello even.

• a child being very friendly could just set him off.

My son needs tasks presented in a very specific way My son is way ahead academically...

Anyway I could go on but he has enormous potential and mainstream would actually harm his development. He's not that unusual.

Of course ponder anyone with additional needs who is getting their best education in mainstream should remain in mainstream. All for that.

I know a lot who are happy for their children with SENs to remain in mainstream

I think that this isn't the majority but I'm quite happy to be wrong, however what is wrong is putting sen in mainstream as a default.

Banana If Specialist Settings were the default the Specialist Sector would have to increase massively. I'm glad it's not, the default, in terms of my own DC. Who despite some hitches early on has gone on to thrive in mainstream.

Have you read my posts earlier concerning what could happen if the Specialist Sector was to increase massively? What did you think?

Mainstream still isn't the default at the moment. Specialist settings are always a consideration for children deemed to have high level needs. For the record, on my DC's initial Statement, since ceased, their needs were termed 'severe and complex'. We are not talking about any small turnaround here.

what is wrong is putting SEN in mainstream as a default

How on earth are you defining SEN here that the majority shouldn't be assumed to cope in mainstream?

Neither should be the default for everyone. It should be about which setting can best meet the needs of the individual

.help with reading, to spend say half the week in a special say for a term.

Banana ???? Just seen this. Mainstream schools have successfully been running 'reading recovery' type programmes for decades!