To think that a five year old boy should not be permanently excluded from school?

[whatatanker]

My son has been threatened with permanent exclusion today.

His behaviour is poor, but I have honestly tried so many things - have an older son, who is absolutely delightful and enjoys school.

He is 5 weeks into school in his reception year. He’s emotionally immature and struggles to sit still and has started hurting others in the classroom.

Should this really be happening?

I am a retired head of two schools with behaviour support units. Is there a behaviour support plan in place(you should have been involved in planning this if so)?
Do you support school staff with any consequences of bad behaviour( eg. "You can't play on the ipad tonight because you hit someone at school today" (I once fixed a 5 year old using promises regarding "The Simpsons").
Is his behaviour at home good?
Is his dad around? If so does he work consistently with you about expectations?
Has the school suggested you could sit with him at school (you'd need to have safeguarding checks etc)?
There are so many variables... we had a Nurture Group to help children with your son's issues. It was brilliantly effective but the funding was chopped- thanks, government...

I wish people would stop talking about “bad” behaviour. For many children, behaviour is the only way they can communicate their distress in certain situations. This is something that can be worked on in various ways - making changes to the child’s environment, helping the child identify that they’re getting distressed and the cause, and giving them coping strategies - but it takes time.

"Is he in a mainstream?"

He was for 3 years. Now in a specialist independent. There were 3 non verbal children with severe learning difficulties in his class in reception.

There was a child like this I knew. He’d also beat up other students in the process - every single day. It was obvious he had a severe congenital condition. Personally I didn’t think he should be in mainstream as it appeared to be more detrimental for him. I know that his school asked him not to attend unless his parents attend with him as they could not cope.

But the children being prevented from learning because of another child's difficulties are themselves discriminated against.

Discrimination works in all directions.

Don't forget, the whole class is comprised of 4/5 year old's. Some of them must be terrified, seeing this aggressive behaviour play out in the classroom on a regular basis.
Their right to see school as a safe space matters just as much.

That's not discrimination. They don't have a disability. It's unfortunate, and shouldn't happen, but unless they are differentially impacted because of some other characteristic (e.g. if a child were targetting girls only, or Black children only) it's not discrimination.
They have an EQUAL right to learn. They do not have a superior right to learn. You are suggesting their right to learn is more important than the other child's right. It isn't, either morally or legally.

Are classes no longer “Streamed”?
It used to put the kids who wanted to learn together, so they could learn in peace, and the disruptive ones were in a terrapin block.
It’s not fair on any child who wants to learn to be relentlessly disrupted by kids who for whatever reason can’t or won’t “ Behave”.
Seems there are many more disruptive children nowadays who are forced into lessons eminently unsuitable for them.

Completely agree with you.
The system is broken.

I know that his school asked him not to attend unless his parents attend with him as they could not cope.

This is unlawful.

Let me tell you how things worked with my DD, now 8 and in a special school.

She went to a local mainstream primary from the age of 4, with an EHCP and funding for a full-time 1-1.

The school were amazing. When there were problems - and sometimes there were - they consulted with the LA’s specialist autism teacher and the ed psych.

Despite DD’s at times very challenging behaviour - yes, including throwing chairs - when things were overwhelming, no child was ever hurt. This is because the school was doing its job.

And she was never, ever blamed or described as naughty. The school were happy to support her for as long as we wanted her to remain there, and we never had any negative feedback from other parents.

We eventually made the decision to move her to a special school after lockdown, when she could no longer cope with being in a class of 30, and, obviously, the school couldn’t magically reduce their class sizes.

We were the ones to suggest the move - at no time did anyone, either staff or other parents, put pressure on us to move her.

She’s thriving in her new school, but I’ll always be glad she had three years in mainstream and be deeply grateful to the school for making her time there happy and productive.

Just to clarify, the child is mostly well behaved but has had 3 hitting incidents and one biting incident over a 5 week period? During which he was trying to settle into a new environment with minimal support

It didn't sound that bad to me either; I can't imagine a school would threaten exclusion for that, particularly in reception, but the OP did come back and say it was a throwaway remark by a new teacher. She probably didn't mean it, or only meant it if the behaviour continued/got worse.

Do you support school staff with any consequences of bad behaviour( eg. "You can't play on the ipad tonight because you hit someone at school today

Completely disagree with punishing at home for something that happened at school.

They have a right to be safe from harm which goes before a right to education.

Cos safeguarding.

If a child with a disability is harming other children it is not discrimination to remove them. It's a proportionate response. Any additional needs that need to be addressed in a more appropriate setting where it does not put other children at right.

This idea of equality does not Trump safeguarding. I am sick of hearing the guidance and incorrect bollocks on this subject.

Schools have a duty of care to balance the needs of all children but above all else they have a duty of care to ensure the safety of those in their trust.

How do you stream a 1 class intake of 30 at primary level?

What utter nonsense.

No one is saying a child with a disability can’t ever be excluded, they are saying the school must follow due process and the law, which hasn’t happened in this case, and therefore it is discrimination. Acting unlawfully is not a proportionate response. An appropriate setting is achieved by schools following due process and acting lawfully.

"Due process"

Allow kids to be hit and bitten whilst the grown ups sort out what to do?

Nope the grown ups have left the room if we are doing that.

Removal THEN work on plan as matter of emergency.

Its not discrimination to protect other kids.

At my DC primary school there was a child with violent and unpredictable behaviour. It escalated and among other measures the deputy head interviewed pupils in the class about how safe they felt. I guess ultimately schools have a duty of care to all pupils.

Unfortunately for you the SEN system and law doesn’t agree with you. Schools must follow the law. By condoning schools acting unlawfully you are actually prolonging the situation - schools that follow the law and due process provide parents with evidence additional support is required thereby speeding up the process. Acting unlawfully because of someone’s disability is discrimination.

"Good kids"???

Says who exactly?

@Thatsnotmycar
Unfortunately for you the SEN system and law doesn’t agree with you. Schools must follow the law. By condoning schools acting unlawfully you are actually prolonging the situation - schools that follow the law and due process provide parents with evidence additional support is required thereby speeding up the process. Acting unlawfully because of someone’s disability is discrimination

EXACTLY

So many posting here have zero grasp of the system or the legislation that governs its' processes.

I’m horrified by the number of posters who appear to think that removing a child should be the first rather than very last resort.

You are suggesting their right to learn is more important than the other child's right. It isn't, either morally or legally.
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that they have the right to not be actually disadvantaged in their "equal right to learn" by the behaviour of a child which makes this difficult / impossible.

I guess that position depends on whether its your child getting hurt in school though doesn't it?

Why should a child who is terrified of school and whose reaction is, unfortunately, also to be aggressive be made to spend their days with other children who are scary?
In other words, do you only get a right not to be terrified of school or of other children if you don't have a disability?

Too bad you live in a society where the law says that all children get an education, then, isn't it?