To think they may as well say "don't send children with additional needs back in September"

[drspouse]

The current plan is:
All in bubbles of 30
All in the classroom together
All facing the front (WTF has that got to do with virus protection)
No use of shared spaces except at your rota time and after it's been bleached.
Teachers at the front, 2m away
AND focus on behaviour.

My DS has an EHCP and needs a space to escape to when the classroom gets too much. He's often been using a work space outside the classroom. We just looked round a lovely mainstream primary that has a behaviour base and a nurture base. Oh and a library and an ICT suite that children can access at lunchtime.
His previous school had very little space and the corridor was the library etc.

So how are schools supposed to cater for children who need time out of the classroom to prevent meltdown?
This includes children who are having a hard time at home, can't cope with playground noise etc. Not just those who have a diagnosis of SEN.

And children like my DD who have small group teaching outside the classroom most days - you can't do that with 2m separation and all facing the front even if you can disinfect the break out area.

So I'm guessing nobody really wants a child like my DS in their child's classroom if he's not allowed to go out to his calm down area when he needs to?

Well, I guess I knew the government didn't really want to deal with inconvenient children who don't fit their mould, but this confirms it.

I really feel for teachers, yet another impossible task.

"But accepting that things might not be at the top level of expectations to allow everybody to restart should be the reasoning." But not everyone is restarting, it's a selected group excluding a quite a large majority.

What if the government said only children could go back from families of the largest ethnicity group in the country? That would also take the majority back but would be more openly bias and open to criticism (and so wrong, I'm not suggesting they should, just using it as an example). The leaked guidelines are so obviously not inclusive of children with send but it is more acceptable and palpable in society to be openly bias against disability than it is to be racist. It is not ok to to say get everyone back to education but x,y,z.

The government can do better.

Edit: first para: excluding a large minority (group) not majority

Yes, everyone is strangely silent on "what if another large minority of children couldn't go back".

Probably because it’s not a reasonable comparison.

You don’t need me to tell you special needs covers a vast area, and it isn’t accurate at all to say children with special needs can’t go back. Some children with additional needs may well actually benefit from the change to classrooms and schools.

If yours doesn’t, then I fully agree an adjustment needs to be made. But this may well involve some compromise at both ends. And somewhere along the line, if your answer to everything is ‘no’ (no he won’t sit facing the front, no he can’t stay in one classroom, no he needs to be able to walk around, no he needs to face another child) then there will come a point where it isn’t workable.

And actually schools are to a large extent worked on the assumption that their intake is white British. They are taught in English. They observe religious holidays that are Christian. Uniforms may be adapted on cultural grounds but it is an adaptation and not a completely different uniform.

If someone kept saying - no, I want you to teach this, I want you to observe this holiday, I want my child to wear this, I want this to be taught in history - no one would say your child cannot attend, but nor would they necessarily pay any attention either!

I think the crux of this disagreement is three ideas.

1. That the government guidance is the best that can be done to return school in september during the pandemic and sadly they cant cater for all SEN children as a result.

1. Thats its ok to say 'all children, everyday' but design guidance that means a specific group of children cant come and hope no-one notices.

3.. That if you can only educate a section of children it makes sense to educate children based on quantity as appossed to ability to access other forms of education.

I dont believe for a minute that the government couldnt come up with more inclusive guidance and additional funds so the other points dont need arguing about. I am hopeful that many individual schools will be very inclusive, but some schools wont and there isnt any legal method to hold them to account. Right now.

@Rhubarbpink I assume you are aware of the concept of protected characteristics under the EA2010?
If you say "but the schools are mainly Christian" and therefore we won't have halal food - and SOME Muslim children can eat non-halal food so this isn't discrimination - just watch what happens.
You are saying exactly the same. SOME children with AN can cope with this so it's fine.

It's not "compromise" to fail to put into place something that means my DS can come to school. It's not me saying "oh my DS has to sit next to his TA and I'm not willing to compromise on it". It's like saying "oh my DC has to have their insulin and I'm not willing to compromise" or "oh my DC has to use a wheelchair" and the school saying "why don't we compromise and see if they can walk once we go back in September".

Why does everyone think parents are "demanding" and not having what their child needs is a "compromise"? It's no more a "compromise" than taking away a deaf child's hearing aids.

It's not "compromise" to fail to put into place something that means my DS can come to school. It's not me saying "oh my DS has to sit next to his TA and I'm not willing to compromise on it". It's like saying "oh my DC has to have their insulin and I'm not willing to compromise" or "oh my DC has to use a wheelchair" and the school saying "why don't we compromise and see if they can walk once we go back in September".

Yes to this.

Why should parents of children with SEN and disabilities be expected to compromise on their child's education and compromise on their health and wellbeing? It is typical of the attitude of some that it is okay for disabled people to have adjustments and support provided it doesn't inconvenience non-disabled people.

@Rhubarbpink white British doesn't equate to Christian or speaking English. Actually my ds school has couple of days over Eid as a full school holiday. Some schools are Islamic, some Jewish, some schools Catholic. Some schools have been set up to follow a different curriculum. I'm also confused by your remarks about uniform, is the uniform you refer to white British or Christian?

You clearly do not understand that requirements set out in an ehcp are what is needed in order for a child to learn and have equal access to education. Parents aren't disagreeing, they're actually agreeing and enforcing what councils have written and stated their child needs.

Does the idea that some children may return to a more normal/ pre covid style of education upset you because your child may not?

What I am saying is clearly the government isn't investing the money required to make education accessible to all and they could if they chose to.

Actually erhenicity/ race/ sexuality/ gender are all comparable as they are all protected characteristics and have been recognised in law as being more likely to suffer inequality. Disability is actually more protected as their is encouragement of of preference in employment.

@drspouse cross post sorry. Completely agree

It's not even that, @BankofNook. It's not a "compromise" if it prevents a child from coming to school.

A "compromise" would be saying, my child needs to catch up on Maths but let's hold off on the extra Maths tuition because my child can stay in school without that, and it just introduces an extra adult into the bubble.

Not having a safe space is not a "compromise", any more than removing ramps is a "compromise". It's removing an essential, without which my child cannot come to school at all.

You cannot reasonably expect one-to-one in the current climate

😂

ds has 1-1 because he's an absolute danger to himself and others, if he didn't have 1-1 at school and 1-1 at home he would be DEAD

Even 1-1 isn't enough and the more I pick him up the more I'm seeing he's having 2-1 at school, same at home, I'm struggling to manage him on my own now he's getting older.

Sometimes 1-1 is necessary for more reasons than a child learning.

I know what you mean.

DS can't write properly so has a laptop. As things stand at the moment they don't know if he will be able to have it in class, reasons why are fairly woolly but it all seems to boil down to overzealous "infection control". I've been told all pupils will be provided with a plastic, wipe clean pencil case containing a pen, a pencil, a ruler, an eraser, and a pencil sharpener. Great. Except DS, aged 11, has the writing skills of a 5yo so is not going to be able to actually complete any school work to any sort of standard. It's setting him up to fail and it's not acceptable.

For my DS, saying "you cannot expect 1:1" is like saying "you cannot expect desks, chairs, teachers, or doors to get into the classroom. All the other children can self-educate sitting on the floor and climb through the window so why can't you COMPROMISE!".

I’m not saying that at all!

Reasonable adjustment is we serve halal food. But that isn’t the only food served.

And that’s the difference because what you seem to want would change the classroom for everybody. It isn’t equivalent to halal food being served, it’s equivalent to demanding everyone eats it.

That is really strange though bank, that is where schools do just sometimes seem to be obstructive for the sake of it! That I have every sympathy with. However I can quite see how it is very difficult to have to have the classroom a certain way due to infection controls but one child can’t manage it - I honestly think that would come under the heading of an unsolvable problem.

@wagtailred yes. I agree.
I am hopeful that many individual schools will be very inclusive, but some schools wont and there isnt any legal method to hold them to account. Right now.
This is the case in my ds's school, and there seems to be no negotiation or discussion. Yes some children with additional needs are able to be accomodated, but not the child who is blind, not ds and others who have specific care needs, not the child who requires a close adult at all times...there is nowhere for these children, and no discussion either about the children who are/have been shielding - how we can move forward with this. We seem to just be seen as a nuisance.

what you seem to want would change the classroom for everybody

And that's a bad thing why? If systematic barriers are removed then everyone benefits as it becomes accessible to all. Maybe you should be asking yourself why classrooms are currently set up in a way that excludes some children.

Look at the end of the day as a parent you have to decide whether you want to send your child to school under these conditions. If it doesn’t work for him or you then keep him home and get work from the school.

Because there is a pandemic, bank.

Because in effect what we have is:

The classroom needs to be set out in this way to minimise infection and risk.

The OP says her child cannot manage that.

So what do we do, genuinely?

I don’t know. I don’t have an answer; I don’t think there is an answer, to be honest.

Except from September attendance is expected, work won't be set for home, and fines will be issued for non-attendance.

And actually a focus on group work and so on actually does systematically exclude some children - nothing will suit everybody all of the time.

what you seem to want would change the classroom for everybody. It isn’t equivalent to halal food being served, it’s equivalent to demanding everyone eats it.

Effectively everyone usually eats halal food... So that's a really bad comparison.
Or, possibly, it's a perfect comparison.

But I haven't suggested changing the classroom for everyone.
I've suggested starting again from scratch and working out a plan that's entirely different and that's safe for everyone.
Enough space for everyone to have easy working room and feel comfortable and be able to go to a safe space.
Money to set up temporary classrooms without making teachers do it for free over the summer. Lots of those who have been made redundant or are on furlough will work in facilities, will already administer church/community buildings, will be in the building trade. Supply teachers and TAs have also been struggling for work and could work finishing off the classrooms. I bet there are people working for charities who could do things around safeguarding.

Relaxed fines for those that want to, and can, home educate (note I said above, but nobody seems to have read it, that those taking the mickey/that really need to be in school will be known to school. It doesn't have to be all fines or none.)

Why is it a perfect comparison to insist say a vegetarian child eats halal food?

I’ve never agreed with fining though, so I am with you there. However, I think the other things you suggest are bonkers, to be honest.

Look at the end of the day as a parent you have to decide whether you want to send your child to school under these conditions. If it doesn’t work for him or you then keep him home and get work from the school.

So what you're saying is that my child doesn't have a right to education in school, while children without AN do?
It's not ME deciding I don't "like" what is happening in school.
It will/would be my child being unable to cope.
If I was saying "but what about his extra maths tuition", then I'd agree with you. That's my decision to send him or not.
It's the government suggesting a setup in school which will mean my DS and his classmates and the adults are not safe.
An alternative arrangement where he and the other children and adults are safe is perfectly possible.
But those writing the guidelines have not thought of the needs of children like my DS.