For taking DS out when he's supposed to be at school?

[penny4books]

First off, I want to say I'm in no way letting DS get away with his behaviour.

DS is 14, and in year 9. Last year, He was excluded for taking a knife into school, and is now attending a PRU. He later told me he'd get angry and voices would then tell him to do things, he's currently on the waiting list for CAHMS but it could take years and I don't have the money to go private unfortunately.

He came home from school yesterday and was in a bad mood so went to his room to calm down and so we know to leave him alone. DPs children were around yesterday and SS(13) went into his room to talk to him about a game, but because DS didn't want to speak to anyone and SS wouldn't leave him alone, he threw his book at him. SS came and told us and I went to talk to DS, he told me he didn't mean to, he got angry and couldn't help it etc, he did later apologise to SS. I did take his phone off him though.

Today, I've kept him off school as everyday he seems to have a bad day and it's causing problems with his behaviour as at home, he's mostly well behaved at weekends and during holidays so I suspect he's struggling to cope at the PRU, as he was at his old school. I do suspect he could be autistic but again, he needs a diagnosis which could take years so I can't send him to an SEN school. Today's plan is to take him out to town so I can talk to him, he doesn't have any devices so being at home won't be ‘fun’ for him but DP has said I'm BU by doing this so I should stay at home with him all day.

AIBU?

@lifeturnsonadime I understand that. I meant unwell as in too unwell to go to school. Plenty of children with mental health problems (including those who hear voices and experience psychosis) have to go to school, otherwise they’d just never get an education. Of course, if he was genuinely in crisis (panic attack, psychotic episode, severely depressed etc), then it would not be appropriate for him to go to school. However, it does not sound like this was the case as the OP was discussing whether or not to keep him off. If he was too unwell to attend, it would be obvious.

Plenty of children with mental health problems (including those who hear voices and experience psychosis) have to go to school, otherwise they’d just never get an education.

Incorrect. Plenty of DC receive an education despite being unable to attend school due to their SEN &/or mental health. Just like those unable to attend school due to physical health reasons.

Plenty of children with mental health problems (including those who hear voices and experience psychosis) have to go to school, otherwise they’d just never get an education.

With respect, children whose needs are not being met in school may be forced to attend, the education they receive in those circumstances is highly questionable.

My Child was forced into school, by me, in similar circumstances because I listened to people like you and because I was ill advised. With devastating effect. He ended up trying to kill himself and had a complete breakdown.

After a period out of school he has had the chance to emotionally recover and now attends 6th form doing A Levels. If I'd left him there he'd either be dead or have a criminal record.

I

And Chocolate Foxes It is absolutely not always obvious.

Children with Autism can mask their difficulties when in school and school's love to say children are fine ,in school, when the opposite is true.

@Thatsnotmycar I didn’t say ‘all children’ I said ‘plenty of children’. Of course, some children need alternative provision such as SEMH schools, online school or home education.

However, whilst they are on roll at a school (or in this case a PRU), they need to attend, unless on a specific day they are too unwell to do so. It may be that the PRU is not appropriate for OP’s DC, in which case that’s something she would need to discuss with his teachers / the local authority.

However, whilst they are on roll at a school (or in this case a PRU), they need to attend, unless on a specific day they are too unwell to do so.

This child is not well enough to attend. He is hearing voices and lashing out and expressing distress in other ways. You shouldn't force a child to attend an unsuitable setting until you can sort out the right provision if it will cause them harm.

Far better that you say it is harming their mental health and ask the LA to carry out an EHCNA and put in alternative provision under s. 19 of the Education Act after 15 days absence , than let a situation continue which is likely to cause the child (and potentially others) harm.

@lifeturnsonadime I completely understand. I am very sorry to hear about your son’s difficulties and I’m glad he’s doing better now. I suffered with mental health issues throughout my entire secondary school career. I had to take a month off during GCSEs and I dropped out of my A Levels because I was so unwell.

However, when I was able to attend school my mental health issues obviously didn’t go away. At the end of the day, I knew I had to get my GCSEs so I dragged myself in when I was able to, encouraged by my parents.

So I don’t quite understand what you mean by ‘people like me’. I’ve literally said multiple times that if someone is not well enough to be in school because of their mental health, then they shouldn’t be in. Which was clearly the case for your son.

But in the case of the OP, she’s talking about whether or not to keep a son off for a chat because he got angry the day before and he happens to have MH issues. If OP had said ‘my son seems really mentally not well and disturbed should I send him in?’ Then obviously everyone would say no she shouldn’t. But it’s not black and white. Some kids with mental health issues can go to school, some can’t.

Also I wasn’t clear, I meant because parents know their children so well, it would be obvious to them whether or not they should send them to school. Not that it would be obvious to the school.

I didn’t say you said all children. I know exactly what you posted, and it is incorrect. “Plenty of children with mental health problems (including those who hear voices and experience psychosis) have to go to school, otherwise they’d just never get an education.” is incorrect.

However, whilst they are on roll at a school (or in this case a PRU), they need to attend, unless on a specific day they are too unwell to do so.

Again incorrect. The legislation applies to SEN as well as illness, and pupils on the roll of a school are still entitled to s.19 provision. Removing them from the school roll because they can’t attend full time is off rolling, and unlawful. Plenty of DC who are on a school roll but unable to attend full time due to their SEN &/or health (physical or mental) remain on the school roll and are provided with alternative education by the LA under s.19 of the Education Act 1996.

As a side point, home tutoring provision provided by the LA under s.19 of the Education Act 1996 or via an EHCP is not home education. It is important to distinguish between those provisions and elective home education because the LA retain responsibility for the former.

@Thatsnotmycar it seems like you’re deliberately trying to misunderstand me at this point. It’s just common sense to say that children have to go to school unless they’re not well enough to go.

Obviously as you have said in individual circumstances children are provided with alternative provision, as agreed by the school. However, in the OP’s case alternative provision has not been agreed. So her son needs to go to school. Unless he can’t, in which case he can’t. I don’t understand what’s so offensive about that?

Also it IS true that some children with mental health issues need to attend a regular school in order to get an education. I know at my comp there were people with severe mental health issues who either came to school, or took time off when they couldn’t. Sadly, there is not always adequate or appropriate alternative provision available.

@chocolatefoxes

With the greatest of respect you are completely incorrect.

The fact that there is inadequate formal provision doesn't mean a child has to go to school to be educated. A child's education should. be based on the need of the child not the availability of provision.

I am glad there were days you were able to attend school and I am sure some people can attend with mental health issues, although it is highly questionable that if the school is part of the problem it is in their best interests to be educated there.

This child is showing signs of extreme mental health issues, he's already been excluded from one environment and placed in a PRU now he is continuing to show signs of significant mental health issues. It is highly unlikely he is well enough to attend the PRU. The fact his mum is even considering he needs a day off indicates he is really not coping.

I know you mean well. By 'people like you' I simply meant people with the incorrect view that school is necessary and the best place for an education when a child is struggling.

This mum will do what is best for her child. She will be being told that he must be in school or he won't be educated. There are a few who have posted this on this thread. I am simply stating that this is not true and might in fact seriously harm him. This is based on first hand experience.

You have acknowledge that my child had serious mental health issues which has led to my decisions, it didn't start that way, it started by ignoring the signs and failing to put his needs first.

SS does know he should knock to see if DS wants him in there/to talk to him, DS told me he just walked in. I did speak to DS about what to do next time (like calling me) he agreed but said he wanted to but couldn't. He did know throwing the book was wrong, and he did apologise.

DS told me he didn't want to talk earlier which then led to DP shouting at DS when he got home from work, as he got a ‘free’ day off, I told him not to speak to DS like that, DS then went to his room upset but he let me talk to him, he told me he doesn't feel safe anywhere as he always hears the voices but he sometimes he ignores them but other times they're too ‘powerful’, he got upset saying he wants them to stop but no one cares etc, I gave him a hug and told him I care and love him etc. I will phone cahms tomorrow and hopefully he will get seen sooner, and the school. I'm not sure what to do about sending him to school tomorrow though

I am not misunderstanding you. I am understanding exactly what you have written but it is incorrect.

Legislation doesn’t just cover illness. And even if it did as @lifeturnsonadime posted OP’s DS isn’t well enough to attend. He is hearing voices, not sleeping, masking and the coke bottle effect is going on.


Obviously as you have said in individual circumstances children are provided with alternative provision, as agreed by the school.

No, not as agreed with the school. The statutory duty lies with the LA. If a CSA pupil is unable to attend full time due to their SEN &/or health (or actually for any reason) the LA must provide provision even if the school don’t agree.

Also it IS true that some children with mental health issues need to attend a regular school in order to get an education. I know at my comp there were people with severe mental health issues who either came to school, or took time off when they couldn’t. Sadly, there is not always adequate or appropriate alternative provision available.

Those with severe mental health difficulties which preclude full time attendance absolutely do not have to attend. If the LA are in breach of their statutory duty to provide provision parents can force the LA to provide it, via judicial review if necessary.

@lifeturnsonadime I completely respect the fact that you disagree, but that doesn’t make me incorrect.

Of course, in ideal world you are right, education should be based off the child’s needs and not the availability of provision. But if it’s not available, it’s not available.

So of course, the child does not HAVE to go to school (you can’t exactly drag a 15 year old to school), but it may mean they miss out on getting qualifications, which could negatively affect their future prospects and therefore mental health. Not to mention the socialisation aspect of being in school which is equally important as the academic side. For some people with MH issues, it is better for them to be around people so they’re not alone with their thoughts, and they feel they have a purpose.

I managed to attend school sometimes because I was lucky that my school had an amazing SENCO who helped me a lot. There could be similar at OP’s son’s PRU, but it’s harder to access that support if he’s not physically there. Given the nature of PRUs, it is likely they are highly experienced in dealing with young people with mental health problems, although of course it is impossible to say.

At the end of the day, it’s hard to make a general argument because it’s so situation specific. The main point I was trying to make is that mental health issues shouldn’t automatically stop you from being in school. As you say, everyone just wants what’s best for their children’s mental health and education so they will make decisions accordingly.

@Thatsnotmycar I meant that if the child is still on roll at a school, but receiving alternative provision then presumably there would be some arrangement/ discussion with the school. I am aware that it is the LA’s responsibility to make sure education is provided and I should have stated that.

Again, I’m not saying that they HAVE to attend, because you can’t physically drag someone there. I’m saying in order to access education, then they would need to go to school if no alternative provision is appropriate/ available. Obviously this isn’t right but it does happen.

Anyway, hopefully the OP’s son is able to access an alternative form of education if the PRU doesn’t work out.

At the end of the day, it’s hard to make a general argument because it’s so situation specific. The main point I was trying to make is that mental health issues shouldn’t automatically stop you from being in school. As you say, everyone just wants what’s best for their children’s mental health and education so they will make decisions accordingly.

But @chocolatefoxes you think that based on the situation of this child who has displayed signs of psychosis (hearing voices), is being assessed for autism and is on the camhs waiting list, has previously taken a knife to school and been excluded and is lashing out at family members, whose mother is unsure whether school is the trigger, school is the right place?

Remember school here is a PRU. It's not a school it's a stop gap for children with behavioural problems, but can end up a long term arrangement. Children educated in PRU do not tend to have good educational outcomes. Vulnerable children in PRU, such as children with Autism, often end up with worse outcomes as they can be easily led.

There is no point in us to-ing and fro-ing on here.

You have your opinion, I have mine. The OP will make her own mind up.

You have been quite wrong though on some of your points about education as both I and @Thatsnotmycar have pointed out.

@lifeturnsonadime you are correct, there is no point in to-ing and fro-ing. But as I have stated, someone having a different opinion to you does not mean they are ‘wrong’.

OP really good that you are talking.

Has he been able to express anything about his thoughts on attending tomorrow?

Either way you can contact the SENCO about the behaviour at home and , if you haven't already, request an EHCNA.

I do think you need to talk to your partner though about how he is dealing with DS as you need a joined up approach otherwise it will be confusing for him.

It’s not a matter of having a different opinion being wrong. Many of your points are incorrect because they are points of law.

But if it’s not available, it’s not available.

It is available and the LA can be forced to provide it if it’s not forthcoming.

but it may mean they miss out on getting qualifications

Pupils don’t have to miss out of getting qualifications as they can get qualifications whilst receiving s.19 provision if that is appropriate for their needs.

I meant that if the child is still on roll at a school, but receiving alternative provision then presumably there would be some arrangement/ discussion with the school.

There often is communication between the LA, parents and school, but not all the time. And there’s not a arrangement with the school. And that’s not what you said, which is why I responded as I did. You said “as agreed by the school” and the school don’t have to agree to it.

Pupils don’t have to miss out of getting qualifications as they can get qualifications whilst receiving s.19 provision if that is appropriate for their needs.

Absolutely this is what happened with my child. He ended up out of school for 5 years because he was so traumatised by being in the wrong setting. He was able to take and study GCSEs and now his trauma has been addressed he is at mainstream 6th form doing A-Levels. He started off under s. 19 then when it was determined no school could meet needs (due to the trauma associated with attending) he started an Education Other Than At School (EOTAS arrangement) - www.specialneedsjungle.com/eotas-education-otherwise-than-at-school-what-is-it-and-can-i-get-it/

There is so much mis-information about education. LA's don't highlight it and don't like giving it much. But it is available if you are prepared to fight for your child's needs.

Similar with DS1 @lifeturnsonadime, only mines younger. DS1 crashed out of MS, recieved s.19 provision for a while, attended a CAMHS unit as a day patient then got an EOTAS package as there isn’t a suitable school. He’s been out of school nearly 7 years now and I don’t see him returning to a school setting.

@Thatsnotmycar

I’m not disagreeing with you about the law. The law is the law. I’m talking about what sometimes happens in reality. As demonstrated by parents in the Not Fine in School group, not all children are able to access appropriate alternative provision, often forcing parents to EHE. Or they are offered it and it turns out to be inappropriate. Or there is an incredibly long wait for the right kind of schooling. Or there is nothing in the person’s specific area. Despite the legislation, people do fall through the cracks.

Again, I didn’t say ‘all pupils will miss out on qualifications’ I said they ‘may’ miss out on qualifications. It’s great that children can obtain qualifications outside of the traditional environment, however they may not be able to access the full range they would have otherwise had. Or they might not be academically appropriate.

I hold my hands up, I should have said ‘as agreed WITH the school’. As in the school have agreed to keep them on roll whilst accessing alternative provision. Not that the school have permitted the alternative provision.

@Thatsnotmycar

I’m not disagreeing with you about the law. The law is the law. I’m talking about what sometimes happens in reality. As demonstrated by parents in the Not Fine in School group, not all children are able to access appropriate alternative provision, often forcing parents to EHE. Or they are offered it and it turns out to be inappropriate. Or there is an incredibly long wait for the right kind of schooling. Or there is nothing in the person’s specific area. Despite the legislation, people do fall through the cracks.

Again, I didn’t say ‘all pupils will miss out on qualifications’ I said they ‘may’ miss out on qualifications. It’s great that children can obtain qualifications outside of the traditional environment, however they may not be able to access the full range they would have otherwise had. Or they might not be academically appropriate.

I hold my hands up, I should have said ‘as agreed WITH the school’. As in the school have agreed to keep them on roll whilst accessing alternative provision. Not that the school have permitted the alternative provision.

I was amazed by my son going to 6th form. He is lucky because he's very clever. He is very demand avoidant but because he's chosen his subjects and is able to come and go from college as he pleases he's managing fine. 100% attendance last half term.

Even 18 months ago I wouldn't have thought it would be possible.

But it doesn't matter in the end. As long as they are happy education comes in all shapes and sizes. He knows, as does your DS, that I've got his back.

We now have a wonderful trusting relationship. He used to lash out and was violent towards me & other family members.

Most children do want to do well and just need the right environment to thrive.

I hold my hands up, I should have said ‘as agreed WITH the school’. As in the school have agreed to keep them on roll whilst accessing alternative provision. Not that the school have permitted the alternative provision.

Just as another point of law, the school can't just take a child off the roll so it's not a matter of agreeing to keep them on it. It's illegal to off roll a child. The school can say it can't meet need which is something quite different but that will trigger alternative provision.