AIBU to not want this SN child in the same class as mine

[PinkyU]

DD is 5 and moving into P2 which will be a composite 3/2 class. I’ve recently found out that a boy with severe challenging and frequently violent behaviour will be in the same class as a P3.

DD also has SN, cognitive, social emotional and physical needs. She is very vulnerable and significantly smaller than this other child. Small knocks and bumps can cause DD significant injuries such as dislocated hip etc. Their will only be 1 teacher and 1 TA in the class which in non negotiable due to staffing.

I’m concerned that not only will this boy take up a lot of teaching time (away from my DD), he is also a substantial physical risk to DD.

AIBU to discuss/request a change of class for this other child as DD cannot be moved to a different class due to her needs?

OP you are not being unreasonable. Your child’s needs trump the other’s as your child should not be placed at risk of physical harm. Yes I would complain.

Ds displays a lot of challenging behaviour as a result of his additional needs. We know it’s not ideal and me and School are working with a variety of different angencies with mixed results to reduce his stress and anxiety.

I would hate to think another parent would request ds not to be in a class with their child.

We are currently fighting the lea to provide funding for more support (he needs full time 1-1 and currently only gets funding to cover 50% of the time) until that comes through School have moved people around to provide the support, it’s not ideal but it’s rje best use of the limited resources they have

When special education pretty much disappeared this is what we got. Truth to tell, the situation is good for neither child. A child with frequently violent behaviour needs far more input and support than one TA in a mainstream class can offer and your child sound like more support would be welcome too OP. Well said

Ultimately the other child also has a right to an education

What about the ops DD isn't she also entitled to an education.

We had similar problem at DDS school

Class of 30 at the beginning of year 3. DD was targeted by another pupil (who had changed classes).

Things became unbearable and all the school would say was if I didn't like it I was free to take DD elsewhere as this pupil was entitled to an education as well as dd. So I removed her. At the end of year there was 12 pupils left in the class. 29 in the other class. So they evened out the classes. Then more people left. Eventually when the class size got so low the child did leave. It was because the family moved areas.

Melanie your child doesn’t lash out at others so your situation isn’t really comparable.

By snowflake do you mean fragile and likely to be damaged if handled roughly? You’d be right, my DD could be hospitalised and in agony if injured by a child who has previously injured others, through no fault of his own, but shouldn’t I as a responsible parent mitigate for risks that could severely injure my child?

As the mother of a child with additional needs your are BU. Why does your child’s rights trump this boy’s? Perhaps, speak to the school and see what they have in place to support this class.

Your DD isn’t more important than this boy.

Your DD doesn’t own the TA.

The school, likely, know MUCH more than you about how to run a classroom with children with additional needs.

Your attitude is awful.

If your worried about the support being given to your child then talk to the school about that. Discuss how they are going to support her and help them apply for additional funding if it’s deemed necessary.

However those conversations should be about your child not any other child in the class

The point, if I've understood it correctly, is not that the dd's education matters more but that she has a specific type of SN that means she would be likely to suffer serious medical harm from contact which would not be dangerous for a child without her type of SN. Surely this is the type of safeguarding issue that she could ask the school to take into account? It's not about her child being more important than the other children, it's about her child being more vulnerable.

What Sirzy said.

As a parent, you can advocate for your own child, and require robust risk management procedures be put in place BUT you cannot dictate what happens to another child, and in particular you cannot demand that they miss out on support that they should have by removing them to another class without a TA.

What is unreasonable is the school being put in a situation where a teacher and a ta have 3 children in one class with complex special needs that conflict with each other to the detriment of everyone. Nobody's is being unreasonable here except the government.

The school have to pay the first 10, 000 pounds towards provision for every ehcp.

Not true. Schools get a notional £6000 each year by way of delegated funding for children with SEN; the extra £4000 is general funding which comes with very child and covers things like staff costs, equipment, etc. Therefore schools only have to fund the first £6000.

The school can only make a decision based on their budget, not need. Many EHCPs don't come with funding and if the school can't afford more staff there won't be much individual care.

That may be what schools do, but it is unlawful. If EHCPs contain properly specified and detailed provision, it is the local authority's duty to ensure that it is supplied. They cannot by law refuse to fund it above the initial £6000.

Cory, yes: the OP CAN require the school to take her DD's vulnerability fully into account in risk management procedures, but CANNOT demand that the way they do this is to remove the other child.

ESPECIALLY if, as it appears, staffing levels in the school means that the other child would thereby miss out on even the part share of TA support that he needs.

And while I appreciate conversations shouldn't be about another child, safe-guarding absolutely could and should be discussed, even if they do arise from the SN of another child. It's not about extra support per se; it's about keeping the dd physically safe.

Scotland has an Additional Needs tribunal which seems to be similar to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal for England and Wales. If their Additional Needs Plans are so inadequate, people really need to be taking their respective councils to the tribunal. Nothing will change unless this is challenged.

Sorry, cross-post.

It would seem to me if I were a TA in that situation that if both children were working with me, whether allegedly 1:1 or not, the child who has an increased risk of serious injury from contact plus the child who has an increased risk of lashing out, would have to sit near to each other. I would consider that an unnecessary increase in the risk involved. Especially if I as the TA were blamed for not preventing incidents from occurring, which would probably happen, despite the fact that at least one child in this situation is in a place that is not meeting their needs, and 29 other children are supposed to put up with being hit unpredictably or witnessing a violent, noisy incident many times during a normal school term.

Cory, again, yes: the parent can discuss the support needed with senior management in the school. The TA can do likewise, in her professional capacity as part of the school team. What is not acceptable is the TA discussing another child's SN with a parent.

OP, i've been in your exact situation. Eventually, i moved schools.

We were also in Scotland but at the upper end of primary school. Neither my child or the other had a CSP just a standard 'additional learning support' programme. Due to cuts in the local authority, there was only one TA for the entire school. No child had 1:1 time.

My child does not have violent outbursts but does require a lot of support to help focus on class work and to join in group work.

The other child was extremely violent and took up almost all of the teacher's time or the head teacher's time. My child was getting no additional support due to lack of resources and other children were also being deprived of education.

This other child would hit other children and staff at every opportunity. I knew the parents and they were dead set against applying for a place at the specialised school as they wanted to stay in mainstream (their right). Me and other parents complained to the HT about our children being at risk and being constantly exposed to violent behaviour. The HT wrote a letter to us all stating that due to funding cuts, the school were facing a crisis in regards to adequate staffing and resources and called for parent volunteers to come in to work with the children.

Absolutely appalling.

Thankfully, we have since moved and my child is now getting 1:1 time with a TA for about 6 hours a week outside of the classroom. Such a better experience.

I'm still in touch with previous school parents and the situation is no different over a year later. There is still no TAs and, although there are some parent volunteers in the class now, the teacher still spends most of her time sitting with the other child and being hit on a daily basis.

I know it's absolutely awful to say you do not want your child to be in the same teaching environment as another child with significant additional needs. But - you need to think of your own child first and foremost. Based on my own experience, your child will not have her needs met if there aren't any TAs or additional resources in place. Your child is likely to become desensitised to violent behaviours and swearing on a daily basis. Your child will expect to be hit, bit or see her friends/teacher hit or bit or sworn at on a daily basis. Your child will not bother asking the teacher for help because she'll learn to know that the teacher is too busy with the other child. Her self confidence and her learning will suffer as a result.

Moving schools (and moving to an area that hasn't yet been hit by such cuts) has been lifechanging for us. My child is no so happy and getting so many more opportunities than before.

If you're not keen on moving schools, give it a go first and see how things go until the October break. Then reevaluate the situation.

Don't let anybody make you feel guilty for thinking of your own child's needs before this other child's. He/she has his own parents to think of him first.

I have taught under similar circumstances. Child A with various needs which resulted in violent out bursts- throwing chairs, resources etc. (Did have an LSA assigned to gim) Another, child B with Haemophilia which obviously meant he needed to avoid accidents, collisions etc. A risk assessment was written and basically the plan was we vacated the room. Children knew as soon as child A started throwing items to line up at door calmly. I was in charge of ensuring child B was out of harms way and TA supervised child A to ensure he didn't injure himself. I had 2 sensible children go for help from a designated adult (senco) and in the meantime I would swap with LSA and calm child down. (Just so happened child A calmed down quicker with me). This was a school reception class. As the class were with LSA outside or inside (depended where outburst took place) they would have their snack, story time or similar task from timetable.

Something similar seems to happen in my daughter's year 1 class from what she tells me-an activity seems be ready for them to in the school hall just in case child in her class has a 'temper release'. (What the class call it).

yes: the parent can discuss the support needed with senior management in the school. The TA can do likewise, in her professional capacity as part of the school team. What is not acceptable is the TA discussing another child's SN with a parent.
What cant (and multiple posters including myself) have said repeatedly.

Parent talking to school about THEIR child - reasonable
Teacher/TA talking to a parent about THEIR child- reasonable

Teacher / TA discussing any child to any other appropriate member of staff in school - reasonable
Teacher/TA discussing a child (and issues pertaining to the child) to anyone other than relevant professionals or the child's parents - unprofessional

It's not rocket science. If you work with children, don't discuss a child with other children's parents.

Your DD has a right to be safe in school. It is very, very basic safeguarding to ensure that risk of harm to a child is minimised. Any sensible risk assessment will consider severity of injury (increased due to DDs SEN) as well as the likelihood (increased due to the other child's SEN). It is the combination of the two which is concerning, and this should be addressed by the school.

Speak to the school and ask for a copy of any risk assessment from this year and the risk assessment for next year. You want to see, written down, that they have acknowledged the increased risk to DD (the likelihood rating should have gone up) and that they have appropriate control measures in place. FWIW, every school I have worked at had a risk assessment for any child who is more than averagely likely to get hurt, and additionally for every child who is prone to violence. I'm secondary, but I don't see why it should be any different at primary.

If they cannot provide this I wouldn't trust them, and would switch schools if that's possible. But do not, under any circumstances, suggest that the other boy should move classes or that your DD needs the TA. Just repeat, as often as necessary, that you are concerned for your child's safety.

YANBU to advocate for your child but you cannot expect the school to change what they are doing for someone else's child just because you ask for it. If the school feel they have done everything possible and you disagree your only fair option would be to move your child.

I also don't think a child with AN can be said to be violent if their behaviour is caused by their AN. To be violent doesn't an action have to have intent to cause harm. An outburst due to AN wouldn't usually intend to harm, it would just be a reaction to something the child can't tolerate. I know that doesn't change the effect on other children but I think it's important recognise the difference anyway.

I'm not sure that's right manic. I would talk about a violent storm, for example.