AIBU to think this child shouldn’t be in my son’s class?

[HicDraconis]

A boy at DS1’s primary school - P - arrived a couple of years ago having been excluded from several other local schools. He was violent and prone to angry rages if things did not go his way. One break time he jumped on DS1’s back and thumped him around the head. DS1 back kicked him off (he’s a brown tip belt in karate) and was taken to the office for observation (possible head injuries) for the afternoon. P has chased another boy through 5 classrooms and thrown a chair at him, smashed up one of the teachers’ laptops (family had to pay to replace it), that kind of thing.

This year DS1 started a new school (year 7, Intermediate, state school for what it’s worth). He sat an entrance exam which got him into the accelerated extension stream - this is a separate class from the rest of year 7 and maxed at 30 pupils.

Surprisingly, P has also been placed in this class as an extra. He can’t keep up with the standard of work, is disruptive and interferes with the ability of the other students to get on with things. When questioned, the head said he was put in that class for reasons of “strategy” - he didn’t sit the screening test but they think he’ll be easier to handle in this particular set.

The class teacher says they’re aware of his back history, that “strategies are in place and they are monitoring the situation carefully”.

When we accepted DS1’s place it was on the understanding that if he couldn’t keep up with the standard of work he’d be put into a different class.

DS1 is apprehensive about the possibility of being hit again. P has already scribbled over a piece of his artwork so far and we’re only a week into the new term. He’s also disrupted the class with bad behaviour, had various verbal warnings and one strike for verbally abusive behaviour.

AIBU to think that they’re doing P a disservice by putting him in a class where he won’t be able to keep up? Surely he’d be better looked after in one of the standard sets with a 1:1 TA (which he had at primary)? AIBU to think that if they were going to increase the class size to 31, the space should have gone to someone who narrowly missed out on the exam scores?

For the last, and final time, I am frustrated and exasperated because having openly said I'm not giving all the details of individual situations rather than say 'that's one situation' posters have pushed for information seemingly with an agenda of proving the initial statement wrong.

You joined the chat later on, after people had already been asking about SEND (I said no SEND based on assessments), then asked but what assessments etc. I wasn't going ti give that info, but then partial info was getting combed over, despite being told it's not the full picture (hence frustration).

The anecdotes are based on real situations. What I was trying to point out is that boundaries are part of the picture and so is consistency. They not 100% of anything, nor have I claimed that.

As someone with the whole picture, I do believe that the actions of some staff who prioritised a pick and mix approach with a particular child have exacerbated the behaviour and we ended up with a situation where a child knew that whatever they did nothing would be done. It did lead to arrogance.

With the best will in the world, it is an example. It doesn't need people unpicking it to prove it to be untrue. It doesn't need someone saying it's obviously SEND and requesting info on what SEND assessments were done. It doesn't need people declaring a child should have an EHCP. It doesn't need people telling me to consider all these options. It is an example with crucial information removed.

At the very start of the thread, I had explained situations where I would absolutely advocate for a child with additional issues or challenging behaviours to go into a top group (as well as that i've sadly seen that approach used to take the easy route which wasn't fair on any of the children). Whatever decision is made for a child needs to be fully thought through, have a clear plan, establish boundaries (which may be different for the child's needs), have clear expectations for staff on how to deal with behaviour or a situation (with provisions for extenuating circumstances) so that there is a consistent approach across the school.
It's not a radical approach, nor is it expecting 100% compliance all the time, nor does it mean it will work all the time (thingss will have to adapt), but it is a perfectly reasonable model.

Not all of the discussion will have filled other posters on here with joy many of us have children who are “not wanted” in schools/classes or clubs, I can assure you it is very painful and the people chipping in every 10 posts voicing their horror of OPs situation and demanding the child’s removal parents apologies and God knows what else drive it home nicely
I think some of those posts were horrible.

It's why i said I've seen it work and i've seen it not work. At worst, you do get schools who think stick A in top group because they'll ignire and if we put them in set 3 there's too many who'll join in and then poor A gets stuck in top group, limited support, kicks off (understandably) and then you get some of the replies on here.

That said I entirely understand concerns about violence towards other children. One child can't be prioritised over the others.

But if designed well you get a situation like one of mine recently. Child moved at GCSE almost a dead cert for diagnosis (but we are currently battling the system, you'll know how crap it is). Significant issues (obviously not saying) in previous class so moved to a different group, to a teacher who regularly teaches students like B. Teacher speaks to B. Gets to know B. Explains to B how the classroom operates. B shares their needs. Come to an agreement and set expectations on both sides - these are our consistent lines. B knows where they stand. Teacher fights B's corner and puts in remedial support. It hasn't always worked all the time but some things have been absolutely consistent (e.g. checking in with b / clean slate approach / B's seat in the room / B using time out card / b comes to talk to teacher following an issue to resolve it). B's progress in the subject has jumped.

Sometimes those set ups can work.
Sometimes they won't.
Sometimws that's due to school.
Sometimes it's personality clashes
Sometimes it's groul temperament (different group of pupils could have been awful for b)
Sometimes it's a teacher having a skill in a certain area (or lack of)

“I don't need to be told the definition of SEN as someone who works with SEND day in day out”

You don’t understand the definition of SEN. You’ve stated boy has severe emotional and behaviour difficulties etc yet insist he doesn’t have SEN. Emotional and behavioural difficulties IS SEN, regardless of the cause. It’s a fact, it’s the Law, not my opinion.

“Why this has become 'posters campaigning for a child they don't know anything about' is beyond me”

You have said the education system is failing him. You have said he has no life skills, no social skills, won’t be able to hold down a job and will probably end up in prison. I find that extremely sad. There could be better outcomes for him. You could make a difference. However, you seem unwilling to take anything anyone else says on board. Just keep repeating he doesn’t have SEN, it’s boundaries and consistency.

You don’t understand the definition of SEN. You’ve stated boy has severe emotional and behaviour difficulties etc yet insist he doesn’t have SEN. Emotional and behavioural difficulties IS SEN, regardless of the cause. It’s a fact, it’s the Law, not my opinion.*

Maisypops catch on to yourself will ya?

I really hope you are still reading Maisy, I’m sure the intenion was to not to make you fell bad