Teacher said My child….

[Millymollymaisy]

So background of this is my son is sen and because of this he has access to a fidget spinner and a time out card to manage his day.

He became upset before bed last night and told me a teaching assistant had come up to him at school saying why did he have it and that he wasn’t allowed to use it. My son despite being under 8 is really good at expressing what he needs and informed her why he was using it ( he was feeling sad and frustrated and this calmed him)

This provision was agreed by the senco in writing and put into place last year. When I heard this I emailed in to remind them about the agreement and that any staff should know about his needs even at the minimum level

the teacher responded via email praising how fantastic the teaching assistant was ( I never questioned her abilities just relayed what was said to me ) and then proceeded to tell me he was told to put it away as ‘ he was using it to hit other children ‘

now and no I don’t think my child has sunshine radiating from him but I know him and he’s never ever done this to any child ever either inside or outside of school and I challenged this .

long story short I asked senco to step in and get to the bottom of it. Two children were spoken too about it and one confirmed my son hadn’t touched him and the other child said he had no clue what they were talking about. They then emailed me to say that my son ‘ was jabbing forward’ at some peers ( the same that confirmed the above)

i asked them if this actually took place that my son was taking a object and hitting children with it whether he’s sen or not it wouldn’t be okay and as a parent should I have not been called to be told so I could help facilitate it not happening again? I received no response to that

second of all the teacher put in writing alongside a lecture on the safe usage of a fidget tool that the reason he was told to put his managing aid away was ‘ because he was using it to hit other children ‘ I’m sorry but jabbing forward and hitting are very very different ( jabbing is still not okay but no physical contact was made )

when I asked my son this he obviously was upset and denied hitting anyone and he was telling the truth.

I really feel the teacher over stepped her mark in informing me of something that is serious but wasn’t actually true

was I unreasonable in the fact I emailed back the senco and copied the same teacher in quoting both of their feedbacks where it clearly shows my son never hit anyone and as a teacher they should be careful and clear when making allegations about any child including mine ?

@Millymollymaisyid step away from this thread if I were you- the truth is meaningless to so much of mumsnet when it comes to disabled people, even children. They will respond like your child is a sociopathic monster no matter how much you try and explain. Ableism is absolutely rife on here

As far as I can see there isn't a single personal attack towards the child never mind suggestion that they're a sociopath. To most of the pp the truth is very much meaningful. The truth seems to be that the child was using the toy to intimidate/annoy other kids in the class. The exact language used to communicate this are not relevant really ITO the necessary consequence. Why should other children tolerate being distracted and potentially hurt for a piece of metal that clearly isn't fulfilling the intended purpose?

But in some of the replies on this thread, it has been stated that it should simply be removed and in OP's example, the fidget toy was not replaced and was just removed. I am trying to make the point that a disability aid for autism can be as valid as one for physical disability in response to some of replies and the OP's example. I agree with you that the fidget toy could have been replaced and that would be a reasonable intervention.

Speaking as a primary school teacher, I can picture how this went down.

Your DS had been seen messing around with his fidget spinner. Perhaps waving it towards other children, but certainly distracting them from their learning, and/or irritating them with it.
The teaching assistant, who maybe was on their last nerve of the day, told your DS to put it away. A nothingy type of comment that any school staff member would say to a child who was being irritating with a toy.

All your son needed from you was "okay, make sure you're using it sensibly next time." End of issue. You escalated this far beyond where it needed to go. He'd been messing around, he got a very minor telling off, problem solved.

This whole hitting vs jabbing thing is nonsense. Sometimes kids lie, sometimes adults mis-read the situation. Just let it go. No one was hurt, no one has been irreparably traumatised.

I think it’s a perfect example of how the government is failing children with SEND.

So you’re saying helping to support a child with SEND in class is a ‘massive waste of school resources’? 🤔

If the people commenting so negatively on here actually had experience of navigating the (useless) UK mainstream school system for a child with SEND, you really wouldn’t be commenting in the ways you are.

So often, just getting through each day without misunderstandings from other children or staff or other parents is a constant struggle and whilst the reaction of @Millymollymaisy to some might be that she is overreacting, imagine having multiple issues like this week after week …..simply because your SEND child’s IEP or EHCP wasn’t being read and adhered to or staff weren’t bothering to get to know your child.

For all the teachers who are Blutak lovers and seem to think the OP’s DS could simply swap his spinner for blutak……what if for example, he is sensory seeking and loves to eat things he’s not supposed to?! Maybe there’s a reason he doesn’t have Blutak. It’s not one size fits all for children with SEND - although that seems to be the way so many mainstream teachers try and cope.

The word you’re looking for is ‘presentations’.
How a person presents as autistic. In all of our years since our DS was diagnosed as autistic, not a single health professional ever said the word symptom!

‘Symptom’ implies illness of disease….of which autism is obviously not.

It's more likely that the teacher misspoke or misinterpreted the situation/ the report of what happened rather than it being a deliberate lie about your child.

I have a child with autism. Her needs can't be met in a mainstream setting because she needs far too many adjustments and the curriculum does not suit her level of ability even with differentiation. If I had sent her to nai stream beyond year 4 I would have spent my entire time battling with teachers and being annoyed that they seemingly didn't want to meet her needs. The simple truth is that they couldn't. They have to meet the needs of hundreds of others and have little time in the day that they can spend talking to and helping one child through dysregulated behaviour, let alone long email chains or telephone conversations with parents. Maybe it is time parents stop making this an issue of teachers vs parents and recognise that some students do need specialist settings. I also found that I had to consider which battles were worth fighting. Not everything went perfectly for my child even in a specialist setting so I didn't expect that it would. A fidget toy was confiscated or put away here. Personally I would not have chosen this issue as my hill to die on.

As for kids melting down because of the stress of school this is indeed a sign that the school is not suitable for your ds. This isn't the fault of the teachers. Schools are loud, busy places where there are disruptive kids, traumatised kids, badly parented kids, academic kids, kids with home life issues, kids with disabilities of all kinds, kids that bully others etc. They are built around the idea of one teacher to thirty students. They have small pastoral teams as they have tight budgets. They have tight timetables with little wriggle room so they can manage behaviour. It is hardly surprising that kids with sn find them hard.

@cansu but sadly, there just are not enough special schools for the children who need them. And not all children with SEND need to go to a special school - the SEND system needs a massive overhaul in mainstream schools…..adequate funding would be a start & more specialist SEND training for TA’s. Teachers too need better SEND training but starting with TA’s who are likely to be more often supporting children with SEND would be good.

We once had many more SEN schools. It was Ruth Kelly who disbanded them and then sent her SEN son to a private SEN school.

I didn’t realise that. I think the UK should be building ‘sensory schools’….there seems to be much better provision for children with physical disabilities and very high-needs autism but for those with autism who are academic but with high sensory difficulties, there is inadequate state provision.

It’s obviously not as black and white as that but I think there is a significant lacking for children who are able to sit multiple exams when the majority of special schools currently only have to offer English and maths by law.

Well they aren't VERY different. One is threatening violence and one is carrying it out.

I'd say he was using it as a threat but dressing it up as a joke. Except it's not really funny is it? Children should be taught that threatening violence is wrong.

Op has agreed the aid should have been taken away if it was a distraction, she has not disagreed with that.
However the TA did not know that the little boy is allowed to use them as part of a broader plan.
The teacher in writing said that op's child struck another student. This was proven false.

The ways in which people are tying themselves in knots to paint this little boy in a bad light and his mother as dramatic is astounding.

The above are the facts and the teacher should have corrected her error.

Tempone
I agree with you.
The first rule of recording behaviour incidents is to record factually what you saw.
It's why I always record things like "From my location, I saw ... Child did this action and it was unclear whether contact was made/ contact was not made with another child/contact was not made but the child was close to making contact". Same on hitting, I always recorded whether contact was made as a deliberate decision, whether it was inappropriate behaviour that unintentionally ended in contact or contact that was an accidental incident where neither pupil was behaving inappropriately.

It matters because when it comes to EHCPs or requiring professional input there is a big difference between a child in crisis/meltdown, a child not in crisis who is missing their aids or other equipment, etc

In this situation the removal of the fidget toy was reasonable, but the report should have been factual.

That’s all very well and good, but the op can’t just ring up the nearest special school and transfer him can she?

A) he doesn’t have an ehcp yet

b) even when he does there aren’t enough places and it’s a battle to get one.

The mainstream school has said they can meet his needs and accepted him as a pupil- therefore they have a legal duty to educate him making any and all reasonable adjustments.

If they can’t do this they need to be honest with the op and be lobbying the LA for an EHCP and possibly a transfer to a more suitable provision.

Your son was dicking around with the fidget spinner and told to put it away.
That's what happened, accept it and move on.

This

These types of toys in school are a fucking nightmare for teachers. They might temporarily be one way for a child to regulate, but they are a big distraction to all the others and yes, kids muck about with them constantly - show off to peers etc.

Can you work with your DS on finding any other things he can do to help himself?

But also, don't get in the habit of by default assuming your DC is telling the truth and thus teachers are lying. Why would they lie? If they had to take away the spinner its because it was causing issues in the classroom, which is an environment they need to be in control of.

It is age appropriate & normal for DC this age to lie to avoid trouble etc.

Ps jabbing forward with a toy has the same intention as hitting. Its just unsuccessful.

Once again. For the people in the back. Op agrees the fidget should be removed if it was a distraction what op doesn't agree with is the teacher saying her ds struck two children when it has been proven false.

I honestly think people have reading comprehension issues on here.

The mainstream school has said they can meet his needs and accepted him as a pupil- therefore they have a legal duty to educate him making any and all reasonable adjustments.

If they can’t do this they need to be honest with the op and be lobbying the LA for an EHCP and possibly a transfer to a more suitable

This is really nonsense. Schools cannot say they can't meet needs. They are obliged to meet the needs of the children even if the ehcp contains provision they cannot fund or staffing they cannot provide. Quoting the law doesn't make it true. How would a school lobby the LA? There are also parents who do expect provision that it isn't possible to provide. Private EPs write what they think will help the child regardless of whether it is available in a mainstream setting.

I think people are wilfully ignoring what has actually happened in order to fit it in with their world view- all children lie most of the time, teachers are perfect and never lie, SEN children don’t really need their disability aids and the op should be grateful her son is allowed to mix with the ‘normal’ kids.

Ps jabbing forward with a toy has the same intention as hitting. Its just unsuccessful

Not necessarily. Intent is hard to determine, so best not to speculate.
A child could be jabbing something playing a game in their head not even realising who is around or even considering the bigger consequence of it could hit someone.

They are only kids. The teacher just needs to admit she was mistaken in her reporting of it. The OP is not disputing anything else other than highlighting the teachers documented it incorrectly. The teacher is the only one creating an issue by not taking ownership of her error.