How disruptive does a child have to be to be removed from Primary School?!

[Juggletits]

Ongoing saga at our primary school. One child has been hugely disruptive since day one - attacking other children (stabbing with pencils, stamping on chests, stomach punches, facial damage with nails or sports equipment amongst many others), attacking teachers, throwing chairs, upending tables and regularly trying to escape.

Last term they brought a pocket knife in to school and showed it to other children, cut his own trousers and threatened other children that he "could stab them"

There is an ever growing list of assaults and incidents against many children and the parent community is absolutely baffled as to why the child has not been removed. They clearly need serious and ongoing support and our school is not set up for a child with such a level of additional needs.

The reason from the HT is that "certain thresholds haven't been met"

Does anyone know what these thresholds are from a legal/professional point of view?

It has reached the point that parents are keeping their children out of school because they are not safe in the classroom.

Multiple emails have been sent to the school, Academy Trust, Ofsted and MARU

What more can be done? An entire school is being disrupted by one child - this cannot be right?!

There are PRUs that cater for primary age children. Not everyone in a PRU has a learning disability. There are many reasons why children can not access the mainstream curriculum. It might be the curriculum itself, or the mainstream setting. It might be entirely external factors; family issues, pregnancy, all sorts of things. A PRU is not a shameful place, and it doesn’t mean a student has failed. Many of the students do GCSE’s and BTEC at the PRUs I have run or worked in. Many of the students were very able, even gifted and talented. It was usual for most students to go on to college courses, or apprenticeships when they left year 11.

If he's above the age of criminal responsibility (10 in England), you could consider reporting any assaults, damage to property etc to the police. It's a last resort, but it may help him to get the support he needs.

It is illegal to kick a child out because of their Sen, that's why off rolling is such a huge problem

Unfortunately, I am a parent of a child that displayed disruptive and violence behaviour in a mainstream primary school, as a parent it is awful but I constantly worked with the school. He ended up only at school for two hours a day, and he wasn't allowed in the classroom. We went through the process of a ehc plan but the school still gave him a one to one without funding. The senco was brilliant. Lots of safeguarding procedures put in place and she knew their school couldn't give my child what he needed( ADHD, autism) . I ended up home schooling him for a year as the council were useless on finding him a school to meet need. He now goes to a special school over an hour away and has improved so much.
However, I also have another child, a year younger and she was the victim of constant attacks, including a trip to a and e to get her head glued 😡I felt like the school did nothing, even after requesting that they be kept separate at all times, they were still left unsupervised together. She wasn't the only child to be hurt either.
Eventually the child moved school, however I don't know the circumstances of why the child left. I understand your frustration, I would also speak to the senco and like others have suggested try and make it more of a safeguarding issue.

At most secondary schools, the knife incident would have led to exclusion, SEN or no SEN. At that point, it has gone beyond whatever SEN the child may have (bear in mind lack of diagnosis here) and it presents a major risk to staff and students. With a serious incident like this, there doesn't have to be all the hoop jumping and "what have we done to support".

The only reason that happens is if there's a risk of the exclusion being ruled illegal due to lack of SEN support, but my understanding is that does not apply if there is a serious assault or risk of one. At that point, in secondary it is actually pretty easy to exclude.

A lot of primary schools seem unwilling to go down this road for some reason- the students often arrive in mainstream in Y7 and do not last the year.

I'm not sure how old the student is, but if there is another incident like the knife one, I would phone the police and let the school know what you are doing. An adult can't keep other students safe once a weapon is involved.

Obviously things have gone very wrong for this boy, but he sounds at risk of seriously hurting another student, and that needs to be prevented.

In the meantime, follow the school's complaints procedure if you feel your child is not being kept safe.

whatever SEN the child may have (bear in mind lack of diagnosis here)

The DC does have SEN, a diagnosis isn’t necessary for a pupil to have SEN.

ditsydaisy66 for anyone else reading or in case it’s relevant to you in the future, you don’t need to EHE in this situation. The onus is on the LA to provide provision, that can be EOTAS if there isn’t a suitable school. It also sounds like the school were illegally excluding DS by only allowing him to attend 2 hours a day.

This OP.

As a teacher I'd be constantly scared of being stabbed or a child in my class being stabbed.

I have been told that a few times, from various other professionals that the school shouldn't have done that. He is now at a social, emotional and mental health specialist school, the la tried to get him in 9 different mainstream schools, as they didn't believe me or the school he was at that he needed alternative provision. All 9 schools said they couldn't meet need.

We moved our son from his school for this reason. He was in a particularly difficult cohort with some very troubled children, I really sympathised with the children and the teachers but we just couldn't go on, there was something everyday, so we moved him to a school 5 miles away to a small rural school and I haven't regretted it once.

The parents need to go above the HT's head and report that she lies about what actions she is taking to safeguard other children - if you are certain that she is lying.
Probably the LEA knows exactly what is going on.because they will be directing it.
Raise he'll.

I know SS was what you wanted, but in case you can use the information to your advantage in future just because the schools said they couldn’t meet DS’s needs doesn’t mean the the LA can’t name the school. Unless they are wholly independent schools can be named even if they object.

They protected their children, not bullying at all, sometimes it need direct action.

I have a SEN child prone to violent meltdowns, and know how hard it is to get support. Saying that the knife incident suggests a level of planning/ deliberate cruelty my DD wouldn't be capable of. It also took the best part of a term to ( mostly) find the right interventions for my DD after she stopped being able to mask at school, interestingly this wasn't 1-2-1 support.
She was suspended twice in that term, which actually turned out to be a good thing as it got her on the radar of the usually useless LA who were willing to provide support ( mostly counselling) at that point, although I suspect only because it was cheaper than waiting until she ended up at the PRU.

Move your child. Speaking from experience, nothing will happen unless there’s a serious incident and even then nothing is guaranteed as his parents will fight all the way. The only way that the children being assaulted will be prioritised in any way over the violent child is if their parents remove them.

And hope to God there isn’t another one in the next school.

If your child was blinded in one eye, I’m sure you’d feel differently.
The rights of violent children ought never trump those of children who are mon violent and just want to learn.
Segregation keeps everyone safer.
Why should the rights of one affect the safety and well being of the majority?

Good idea!

Another good idea..

Quite.

The child in my son's class is looking like he has complex needs (I am aware of the suspected diagnosis as the mum has told me)

He's fixated on killing or hurting things, using language which is concerning and inappropriate for his age. He's unable to try the difference between reality and fantasy and seems to be getting access to age inappropriate media / games and this is coming out in how he interacts with the other kids. He likes to constantly have a 'tool or weapon' when he plays, which seems to be encouraged as a soft item but has often been a stick during playtimes. He's excessively controlling - staff struggle with him but imagine this in group of young kids - the kids are encouraged to be inclusive but this means they are not being taught its ok to say 'no' if they are unhappy or uncomfortable. He has obsessive behaviour that focusses on certain kids. Overall its been an utterly toxic situation which had clear elements of coercive control and emotional abuse as well as actual physical harm.

I believe in the case of this child there has been dispute over the support the parents believe is needed, what the school believe is needed and what the LA are prepared to provide. There is no formal diagnosis yet and this kid hasn't been considered a priority by the LA. He's falling through all the cracks for numerous reasons.

The whole thing is a mess.

The other child needs one to one support but there's no funding available for it as it stands. He needs to be in a more appropriate environment with less children - one of his triggers is large groups. He just can't cope with it. There isn't the space on site for him to be taught in this way away from others. He needs his friendships actively managed. He needs constant supervision more on a par with a toddler during lessons and breaktimes which isn't possible for his age group. None of this is healthy for other kids to be exposed to.

I don't want to move DS as he has such a good relationship with his best friend and the pair of them have been through enough in the last year with this and other things. Spliting them would do them both a lot of harm. I'm not prepared to hurt either of them. I will fight all the way to defend them both from this kid. I firmly believe its in his best interests too. If we don't keep pushing back he won't get the support he needs. Its not about 'pushing him out'. Its about pushing for him to get appropriate support and for the needs of others in the class to be met.

Its not inclusive just to shove as many kids as possible down a sausage factory mentality. It ends up centring everything on a disruptive child whilst not actually meeting their needs anyway and not balancing their needs with those of other children in the class who also lose out.

There's one little girl from a difficult background and massive anxiety issues who is terrified of the kid in my son's class fgs. Her dad is no longer in the picture...

I'm not sure vigilantism,is ever a good course of action ??

I agree that children should be taught in the best setting that suiits them but please don't talk about them being segregated or whose rights trumps etc
ALL children deserve a good education that suite their needs .

There were a 3 kids like this in my DC school. It was awful. Parents did nothing. School did little. All 3 of them got expelled soon after they started high school but were allowed to get away with it at primary.

A formal diagnosis is not necessary and support is based on needs. If the LA won’t include the support needed the parents need to be supported to appeal.

If 1:1 is specified and quantified in the EHCP funding isn’t the parents concern. The provision must be provided and if it isn’t the parent can enforce the provision. If the school need more funding they should take it up with the LA. If 1:1 isn’t in the EHCP the parents need to appeal.

It's not inclusive just to shove as many kids as possible down a sausage factory mentality. It ends up centring everything on a disruptive child whilst not actually meeting their needs anyway and not balancing their needs with those of other children in the class who also lose out.

Of course it isn't and if it was an adult being forced (in most normal situations) to go to work where the threat of violence, intimidation, injury and pain was constant we'd be kicking up a massive fuss.

Why, when it comes to children, is it OK?

A formal diagnosis is not necessary and support is based on needs. If the LA won’t include the support needed the parents need to be supported to appeal.

If 1:1 is specified and quantified in the EHCP funding isn’t the parents concern. The provision must be provided and if it isn’t the parent can enforce the provision. If the school need more funding they should take it up with the LA. If 1:1 isn’t in the EHCP the parents need to appeal.

The most difficult situations arise where the parents either do not support the school’s account of the child’s difficulties there, or lack capacity to ‘understand and fight the system’.

Some parents may say ‘But they’re fine at home’ - especially if the trigger is larger groups, that can be true, or if the home environment has gradually adapted to the child’s needs and avoid difficulties (whether this be by maintaining a silent and very orderly home, or by very significant screen use , or simply by never requiring the child to do anything they would prefer not to). Other parents are in more active denial. Others simply do not picture what the school curriculum expects and demands (‘can’t he just sit and colour with Miss X in the corner or in the office? He won’t be any bother there’ for a child on the cusp of transfer to secondary and working at the level of a 4 year old).

Yes, schools and parents working very hard together CAN overcome many of the obstacles put up by LAs (though they cannot magic up SS places). But if parents cannot or will not work with the school, or actively work to frustrate and oppose them (or conversely, if a school opposes the parents, which can happen too), then what SHOULD happen in terms of quantifying EHCPs and appealing to the LA may not do so.