Michaela School and behaviour - AIBU

[herculepoirot2]

AIBU to think that you might read this behaviour policy and think it is authoritarian and unnecessary, but to also think that, with results four times better than the national average, these people might have a point about the benefits to young people of being expected to work hard and behave well?

mcsbrent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Behaviour-Policy-11.02.19.pdf

Amy chua makes the point herself that tiger parenting only really appears effective on a very limited type of family/ child- ethically and socially/ economically. Potentially more the type of children of Wembley (she makes the point about 2nd generation immigrants)

That wouldn't account for the failure to admit pupils with an EHCP already in place

Unless they are rejecting them, which they can’t, this isn’t a failure. They only admit 120 students per year group. Not having an abundance of students with ECHPs in Y7 is what I would expect. You also cannot rule out the possibility that parents in the demographic served by the school don’t apply for them as often as parents in other areas.

It's a fascinating feature of Michaela's admissions policies that they nowhere mention EHCPs, which have been in place for almost 5 years.. They only mention Statements of SEN, which came to an end completely 17 months ago and were being heavily phased out well before that. Given that they seem to revisit their admission policies every year, that does rather look like an indication of their lack of interest in the SEN system.

It's naive to suggest that schools can't reject pupils with EHCPs. The law does allow them to do so if they can show that admitting the pupils is incompatible with efficient education of other pupils, but that is a very high hurdle for schools to get over. More materially, the reality is that, when local authorities consult mainstream schools about placing children there, those schools do very regularly say no, even when they can't claim incompatibility with efficient education, and either LAs let them get away with that or parents take the pragmatic view that they aren't going to push for their child to go to a school that doesn't want them. I've regularly spoken to children in this situation where parents are aware that schools are acting unlawfully but know that if they insist on the school being named the school will make their child's life extremely difficult or will be looking for and actively promoting the first excuse to exclude them.

With a national percentage of 3.2% of secondary aged children with EHCPs, the norm would be (very conservatively) for at least two pupils in an intake of 120 to have EHCPs. Brent is in line with national averages. I was also talking about all pupils, not just the Year 7 intake. I can see a situation where, if you have a child with an EHCP aged 12 or 13 struggling in a big comprehensive you might well ask for somewhere like Michaela to be named in the EHCP, yet either that isn't happening or Michaela is managing to avoid being named.

It's naive to suggest that schools can't reject pupils with EHCPs. The law does allow them to do so if they can show that admitting the pupils is incompatible with efficient education of other pupils, but that is a very high hurdle for schools to get over.

That is the one I have been asking about. I am struggling to understand why you won’t engage with that question. If a child has an ECHP and their needs are in conflict with the methods in the school that are working for the other children, what is your position? You seem to be saying that, if Michaela is putting those children off by indicating that it can’t meet their needs without affecting the education of the rest of the pupils, they are doing something wrong?

It seems to me that you are the one unable to accept any explanation other than the one you have decided upon.

This is a 90% discrepancy for a school that, on the face of it, should be particularly attractive to parents of children with EHCPs Simply saying that they aren't choosing to apply cannot accept for that.

We aren’t actually talking about that many people. If a few hundred parents consider sending their children to Michaela each year, it only takes a few either way to skew the statistics in quite dramatic directions, but it isn’t statistically significant.

Over a period of five years this is, with every respect, a statistically unsustainable argument.

With a national percentage of 3.2% of secondary aged children with EHCPs, the norm would be (very conservatively) for at least two pupils in an intake of 120

You are not allowing for the fact that only half that number are in mainstream schools - the rest are in special schools or independent schools. When you add to that the likely skewing of those statements towards middle class families, I don't see how your argument holds up.

Fidget toys are a load of faddy bollocks, so let’s dispense with that.

Oh, right. SI trained and experienced occupational therapists who recommend these and similar strategies obviously have this completely wrong. Because of course it's so much better to punish and exclude children who find fidgeting helps them to concentrate.

This is a 90% discrepancy for a school that, on the face of it, should be particularly attractive to parents of children with EHCPs Simply saying that they aren't choosing to apply cannot accept for that.

It might well account for it. We don’t know.

Consider this: although I am saying, and the school is saying, that the environment might well be very good for children with SEN, that doesn’t mean the parents think that. If, which is my contention on this thread, quite a few parents are just incorrect about what will work best for their children, it’s more than possible that they find the image of the school off-putting.

But again, what is the answer? If the school isn’t a good environment for a certain type of child who can’t cope with its structure and rigour, what should the school do? Tell the parents? Not tell them? Let the child come anyway and then struggle? Change the environment so that that child copes, but everyone else is getting less than what they are entitled to?

The other point here is, that the school has a policy of not applying for ECHPs (except, possibly in extreme cases). They believe, rightly or wrongly, that it damages children to be "labelled" as SEND. They instead take the approach of analyzing the child's specific difficulties and doing everything they can to support them, for example by using intensive remedial phonics for dyslexic children, with an effort that goes way, way beyond what most schools would attempt. That's how they managed to improve the figures for reading levels so dramatically in the examples given by the SEN coordinator I quoted above.

For whatever reason it seems they have the resources to provide intensive support to some individuals. It will be interesting to know what and how.

The other point here is, that the school has a policy of not applying for ECHPs (except, possibly in extreme cases). They believe, rightly or wrongly, that it damages children to be "labelled" as SEND.

Where is this documented? It would explain the discrepancies we are discussing.

Re : Fidget toys. This was written by my daughter when she was in Year 10. She attended a school where expectations of conformity were high (you can’t get more rigid than classical ballet training) but their SEN support was outstanding.

I am Autistic. I am able to function most of the time like a normal human being, but my condition affects me in a very real way.
I have meltdowns, which are basically a sensory overload. Imagine you are in a room and the walls are shrinking down on you. They’re distorting in on you, and you can’t focus on anything properly.
It’s like you have headphones on 10% volume, and they’re suddenly turned up to 100%. You can hear things that you never normally notice; the lights are buzzing overhead, the water is rushing through the walls, and it’s too much.
You can feel the shirt on your back, prickling into your skin. Tights and socks are hell-they itch. Any skin-on-skin contact feels like you’ve been injected by a million needles.
You have an overwhelming urge to run. To run to somewhere where no one can get in (usually a toilet cubicle) and hide yourself away.
From there on, it gets worse. You let out the breath you didn’t realise you had been holding, and you begin strained, difficult breathing. You can’t think. You want to, but you can’t because it’s TOO MUCH.
Autistic people, myself included, often ‘stim’. It can be a hand-clapping sequence, or clicking a pen, or kicking a table. The repetitive motion of the stim grounds; it focuses and allows us to carry on our lives in a somewhat normal manner, even if there is a meltdown trigger. But these stims can distract other people.
If I’m in a meltdown, having a fidget toy reduces slightly the overload I feel, resulting in a much faster calm-down. It can help bring my senses back down to a ‘safe’ level where my world is not crashing down around me.
Fidget toys, whether spinners, cubes or marbles in mesh, were designed for the Autistic, for those with Anxiety, for those with ADHD, for those with ADD.
I often have people tell me, “They’re so satisfying!” But for me, they are not about satisfaction. They are the difference between coping in class or missing parts of my education because I’m in meltdown. Once it’s in my hands, it becomes so repetitive that I don’t think about it, unless I’m trying to keep a meltdown at bay.
I don’t mind people having fidget toys for fun, I really don’t. It is when they are passed around classes, marvelled at, and then confiscated by a teacher that I have an issue. If you get fidget toys banned in your school, it will make the fight for people who need them so much harder.
Whenever I am asked if someone can have a go, I always reply no. It’s my coping mechanism and I don’t want to let go of it.
I’m just asking everyone to be considerate. Use them outside of classes, but they should stay in the pocket during class unless you actually need them. And fidget spinners, I find, are incredibly distracting and counter-intuitive to my concentration, as they are eye-catching. It’s the latest ‘fad’, I know, but they will never be a fad for me. I will probably depend on my cube for years after they have faded away.
Please take this into consideration so that we can all learn in an environment where those with certain needs can learn in a safe, worry-free environment like everyone else.
Thank you.

Hercule - Actually, I'm extrapolating from what Katie Ashford, the SEN coordinator has written in their book and also on her blog.

We want all our pupils to be liberated from labels, rather than be shaped and defined by them. For too many children, the unfounded assumption that underachievement is a result of something irreparably wrong with them has led to a catastrophic reduction of expectations. For a child to be convinced of some fundamental inability to achieve at such a young and impressionable age is tragic. No child should ever feel that, due to a supposed medical issue that is not within their control, they are incapable of reaching excellence. We must open our eyes to the damaging effect of labelling. Any diagnosis given to a child affects the perception they have of themselves and their ability to learn and achieve. To impose a label on a child is to remove her agency and make her dependent upon support mechanisms that will not be there to prop her up once she enters the real world. She learns to be helpless, not independent. She learns to feel hopeless, not hopeful.

If a child has an ECHP and their needs are in conflict with the methods in the school that are working for the other children, what is your position?

I'm saying that good mainstream schools should be able to accommodate pupils whose needs are such that they don't need special school education, and indeed most do. Good SEN provision should mean that, for instance, children with SEN don't reach the point of becoming disruptive because their needs are being met. If they do, the first response should be to re-examine the SEN support that is in place rather than go for knee-jerk disciplinary action. If they are being disruptive for reasons that have nothing to do with unsupported SEN, I have no issue with suitable disciplinary action being taken.

You seem to be saying that, if Michaela is putting those children off by indicating that it can’t meet their needs without affecting the education of the rest of the pupils, they are doing something wrong?

No, that is not what I am saying, and yet again you appear to be being deliberately selective about what you choose to respond to.

It is very, very difficult for a mainstream school to refuse to accept a child on the ground of incompatibility with efficient education of other children, because they also have to show that there are no reasonable steps they can take to overcome that incompatibility - and it is recognised that, if that means the LA having to put in extra funding for the support required, that is what must happen. Case law indicates that this is a very high hurdle for schools to surmount. I suspect it would be even more difficult for Michaela than for most schools, because they already have high staff/pupil ratios and are not yet full. I would be very surprised if Michaela is routinely rejecting pupils with EHCPs on these grounds.

What I suspect may be happening, however, is what is seen in a lot of academies and free schools, i.e. that schools are responding to consultations on behalf of individual pupils saying no on other grounds and untrained LA case officers are incorrectly accepting this (which happens depressingly often) or parents are deciding not to fight it. I've known cases where SENCOs and heads have made it very clear to parents that their child will not be welcome. In the nature of things this will not show up in the statistics, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Remember, we are dealing here with a headteacher and governors who, when formulating their admission policy, seem to be unaware that EHCPs exist and that Statements don't.

You are not allowing for the fact that only half that number are in mainstream schools - the rest are in special schools or independent schools.

Yes, I am. Hence the fact that, with a national figure of 3.2% rising to 3.8% with EHCPs in secondary schools, I said that the norm would be only around two pupils with EHCPs in a year group of 120, as opposed to four. And even that is probably an underestimate, because by far the majority of pupils with EHCPs are educated in the mainstream.

kesstrel

It’s a difficult one, isn’t it? On the one hand, you might argue that the label is limiting, but on the other, you might argue that the only limiting thing is the perception of the label, so, you might say, it is only when someone tells a child with a particular condition that they can’t do X, that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And then on yet another hand, you might argue that it is cruel not to acknowledge the limitations of a given condition, because you are telling someone they can and that their condition shouldn’t be an excuse, when actually, it absolutely is the excuse.

I am not sure of the best approach.

Tonnerre

I’m multi-tasking here, and that is just too long for me. I will respond at a later time.

Tonnerre

I can’t find figures about the percentage of children with EHCPs anywhere. Are you able to link to them please?

But again, what is the answer? If the school isn’t a good environment for a certain type of child who can’t cope with its structure and rigour, what should the school do?

What all the good mainstream schools do that achieve just as good results despite having the normal proportion of pupils with SEN and despite operating in a manner that doesn't require rigid and exclusionary discipline policies. I reiterate: it's taking large proportions of public money. It's reasonable to point out that it can't claim massive credit for good results whilst fobbing all those pesky children with SEN and disabilities off onto other schools.

This thread has now become a discussion about SEN children, with the emphasis being, 'What is Michaela doing about them?' The school has clear and successful strategies for supporting these children, as demonstrated by the examples already given. But then there are posters who persist in saying, in effect, 'Ah, yes, but what about this particular difficulty, how do they cope with that...?' It sounds as if some posters are bent on finding the one problem child who could not cope in a Michaela type situation. No doubt there are such children, but I don't believe that they would fare any better in an undisciplined, noisy atmosphere with bullying in corridors. Michaela is clearly doing exceptionally well for all its students, including those who need additional help. The only negative I can think of is the narrow curriculum, especially the lack of IT which I think is essential in most workplaces. However, this is their first set of GCSE results and perhaps they may expand their curriculum later on, having clearly demonstrated that they can achieve stellar results in core subjects

The other point here is, that the school has a policy of not applying for ECHPs (except, possibly in extreme cases)

The trouble with that is that, unless they fund comprehensive assessments themselves - and I've never seen them claim that they do - they can't claim that they are identifying and meeting all the child's needs. The statutory assessment process requires local authorities to secure advice and information on all areas of possible need, including, where relevant, health and social care.

Given the duty of schools to use their best endeavours to identify and meet SEN, if this is Michaela's policy I'd be seriously concerned that they're breaking the law.

What all the good mainstream schools do that achieve just as good results despite having the normal proportion of pupils with SEN and despite operating in a manner that doesn't require rigid and exclusionary discipline policies. I reiterate: it's taking large proportions of public money. It's reasonable to point out that it can't claim massive credit for good results whilst fobbing all those pesky children with SEN and disabilities off onto other schools.

I don’t know very mainstream schools achieving such good results. That’s the point. Their results are MUCH better than the vast majority of schools with more flexible policies. They are outstanding.

I can’t find figures about the percentage of children with EHCPs anywhere. Are you able to link to them please?

Seriously? The DfE publishes these statistics every year, I found them on my first Google search.

It sounds as if some posters are bent on finding the one problem child who could not cope in a Michaela type situation. No doubt there are such children, but I don't believe that they would fare any better in an undisciplined, noisy atmosphere with bullying in corridors.

And if they would, does that mean the other children at Michaela should have to put up with it?

The head of? SEN has a book due out next Jan, should be interesting.

NicolaMarlow, the problem is that we don't know whether Michaela's strategies successfully support children with SEN, because they aren't getting them assessed for EHCPs, they are taking a minute proportion of children with ECHPs, they don't seem too clear about the law on EHCPs, and we don't know how many pupils with SEN are being managed out.

I note that their SEN policy nowhere mentions EHCPs. In a mainstream school, that is absolutely extraordinary.