Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be concerned about school residential?

77 replies

Hotchocolate2023 · 23/10/2023 20:04

Child is 9, autistic and adhd. Has a full EHCP and full time 1-1. His 1-1 is scheduled to remain at school looking after DC who don't want to go. My DC does want to go. School have stated that "they take lots of children with EHCPs on residentials" and left it at that. Lots of children with EHCPs aren't runners and prone to meltdowns. He has an individual behaviour plan to support his behaviour. They pulled a child off the trip last minute last year after it was all paid for because they risk assessed them out at the last opportunity.

They have said they must sign a code of conduct but it contradicts his well known needs.

AIBU to email now they are asking us to pay and ask exactly how he will be supported without his TA and for an individual risk assessment to show he has been properly planned for? My instinct is his 1-1 isn't going because they aren't planning on him going but they don't want to tell me no and want me to decide not to send him.

OP posts:
cansu · 23/10/2023 20:41

Dragonfly98. I am a parent of two children with EHCPs I am a teacher. No one can make a teacher or TA take charge of a child overnight. They have contracts that do not include school trips overnight.

BouncyBallBall · 23/10/2023 20:42

titchy · 23/10/2023 20:21

If you're happy for him to go day time only then presumably that would be within his 1:1's hours - in which case then1:1 MUST go with him.

no they must not
it is not that person- it is time (if it is written in hours but many ehcps are not) or support not that person

ExperiencedTeacher · 23/10/2023 20:42

DragonFly98 · 23/10/2023 20:38

because she is needed at school or because she doesn't feel able to take responsibility for your ds in an out of school environment 24/7. not of those reasons are relevant or legal. If you no nothing about an EHCP why comment?

Show quote history

To be fair I think the PP is referring to that specific member of staff. The EHCP does not refer to individuals but to roles within schools because individuals change and have their own “stuff” that happens. In this case a 1:1 must be provided but legally it wouldn’t have to be the usual 1:1, as OP has already said.

SecondUsername4me · 23/10/2023 20:42

Everythinghasgonetoshit · 23/10/2023 20:13

Following this with interest as I have a severely autistic son who is 5. He will most likely end up in a special school with lots of support, but not sure how it works with school trips or if it is a good idea with him. He runs off and puts himself in danger a lot.

Special schools do also run residentials. There are some outdoor centres specifically geared up for children with extensive physical and educational needs.

From my (albeit not very broad) experience, the groups are small, heavily staffed, with a else intensive timetable - usually because dishing out meds across the group/peg feeds/time to decompress etc has to be factored in.

Soontobe60 · 23/10/2023 20:43

Diamondcurtains · 23/10/2023 20:10

My son is 24 now and severely autistic. He did go on one overnight trip away and his TA went with him. He went to a special school so a bit different but there’s absolutely no way I’d have allowed him to go without his TA. Your son is funded for 1:1 so she should attend with him. It’s there in his EHCP. It’s the school’s duty to provide the support detailed in section F of his EHCP.

First of all, the TA may be male!
Second, TAs will not be paid for attending residential trips - who will pay for the 18 hours a day extra to normal school hours?
Third, an EHCP will not specify any support out of the regular school day hours.

SecondUsername4me · 23/10/2023 20:45

Your son is funded for 1:1 so she should attend with him

This is wrong, and completely the wrong attitude to have in this situation.

MrsDaniFilth · 23/10/2023 20:46

@cansu Im not getting into a debate about your post

all i will say - they have to do it properly. Its not a moral debate about the rights and wrongs - the code is the code.

cansu · 23/10/2023 20:47

Section 35 of the Children and Families Act 2014 says that schools and nurseries can only exclude a child from activities if:

  • it is not reasonably practicable for them to be included;
  • being included would prevent them from receiving the support they need; or
  • being included would prevent the efficient education of other children or the efficient use of resources.

I agree they absolutely should try to meet his needs. However it isn't a given that they can or must if the risks are too great and they can't mitigate them.

Soontobe60 · 23/10/2023 20:48

OP, when I have organised support for children with EHCPs attending overnight trips, I have worked with parents to draw up a watertight risk assessment, and a range of different strategies have been used - from a parent attending the trip where feasible, to a child coming for the day and going home at night, to having volunteers from local charities to support.
If the trip is somewhere like Robinwood, their staff ratios are designed to not include school staff - so any school staff is extra. With a child like your DS he would be allocated an activity group with fewer children and 2 school staff who know how best to support him. That wouldn’t necessarily be his regular 1:1.

Rycbar · 23/10/2023 20:49

If his EHCP outlines he gets so many hours of 1:1 the must be provided with it. It does not have to be the specific 1:1 he has during school hours though.

MrsDaniFilth · 23/10/2023 20:50

@cansu Indeed! It has to be done properly.

And if they dont -thats a SEND tribunal!

SecondUsername4me · 23/10/2023 20:51

Can be prone to bolting

This fact alone may be enough to preclude him from being able to stay overnight - whilst a 1.2.1 in the daytime could reasonably keep on top of this, the overnight supervision isn't going to be tight enough to stop him just hot footing it out of his room/dorm/shared accom.

titchy · 23/10/2023 20:53

SecondUsername4me · 23/10/2023 20:51

Can be prone to bolting

This fact alone may be enough to preclude him from being able to stay overnight - whilst a 1.2.1 in the daytime could reasonably keep on top of this, the overnight supervision isn't going to be tight enough to stop him just hot footing it out of his room/dorm/shared accom.

And OP has said she is prepared for him to go just during the day!

SecondUsername4me · 23/10/2023 20:57

I know, I agree. And it may be something the school will have to consider when doing the RA.

cansu · 23/10/2023 20:59

MrsDaniFrith
Personally as a parent my main concern would not be a send tribunal. It would be whether it was safe for my child to go. A school building with locked doors is a different safety risk to hanging off a rope on a climbing trail where safety depends on being able to follow an instructor's safety instructions to clip on. You seem determined to see this through the lense of discrimination. The school may have legitimate and sensible concerns about the safety aspects.

MrsDaniFilth · 23/10/2023 21:00

@cansu i work with schools

I find it tiresome to the extreme when they come out with things exactly like this!

Just find a way for the CHILD to go on the damn trip frankly!

CateinEd · 23/10/2023 21:01

Check out the school’s-

  • SEND policy
  • Equality Policy
  • Safeguarding Policy
Are they adhering to these?

School should be meeting with you to discuss a risk assessment. This will be to mitigate risk. This is a process of identifying risks and making adaptations to lower this risk as far as possible.

As the parent you will also want your child to be safe. Going through the RA with the school will be transparent and help you see how they can ( and can't minimise all risks)

A school and parent I have worked with recently agreed that the way to minimise the most risk was to have a parent present.

cansu · 23/10/2023 21:05

I have two children with ASD. Yes I can tell you are more concerned with the principle than the safety. If the school can keep the child safe yes of course he should go. If they can't then he shouldn't. If you have a child who does not follow instructions can be dangerous. In fact some instructors at the centres will not allow the child to take part if they do not do as asked. I have seen it happen on a trip. Safety comes above everything.

MrsDaniFilth · 23/10/2023 21:09

@cansu i think we can safely agree to disagree!

the kid deserves to go IMHO. thats the overriding principle in my view!

and - having seen a number of schools use 'safety' as reasons to preclude kids - usually unfounded i shall add - its something that pisses me off.
So when they do this - and its not done properly - the risk assessment needs to be proper and robust and stand up to scrutiny - if they dont do that - as i have seen sadly, too many times - usually when they are ringing me to help get them out of the mess they are now in- then they deserve a tribunal, in my view. is all.

Original poster
Hotchocolate2023 · 23/10/2023 21:12

I'm 100% about the safety. If it were my choice I'd not let him go but I want to respect what he wants as far as possible. There is an element that he absolutely doesn't really understand how intense and demanding it will all be so I'm prepared to overrule him where needed.

I don't want to unnecessarily exclude him, but I do want to be 100% confident that school are going to keep him safe and properly supported. I want to work with school whereas when I asked verbally I got a very indifferent response and from seeing them pull another child when they did, I do worry they don't want to be transparent to avoid being on the wrong side of saying "we can't keep him safe" whereas I'd be far less frustrated if they did just say that and we can manage his expectations now.

OP posts:
AT345 · 23/10/2023 21:14

In EHCPs it's common to have the needs that need to be met/ support provided but it does not always (or often in my experience) give a set number of hours that a child must have support for. The school may choose to provide 1:1 support throughout the whole of the school day however this is unlikely to be a written requirement of the plan. Likewise, a particular adult is not specifically named in the plan.

Members of staff give up a huge amount of their time to support on residentials and are not paid for any of the hours outside of their usual working hours. Supporting on a residential is not something that can be enforced but is volunteered by staff.

I do think that is it perfectly reasonable to ask the school how they are planning to support the child on the residential and to ask to see risk assessments in advance however I definitely do not think you can say a specific member of staff MUST go.

NeverDropYourMooncup · 23/10/2023 21:15

Your son is funded for 1:1 so she should attend with him. It’s there in his EHCP.

It's not in the TA's Contract of Employment that she has to go away for residentials and work through the evening and night, though. It would be illegal, for a start.

cansu · 23/10/2023 21:17

No one has said the risk assessment shouldn't be robust. It is a risk assessment not a box ticking exercise where the risks are high and everyone says oh well his ta can stay with him and monitor this or that.

I have had a child in school climb out of windows and run off. Four members of staff following them and trying to persuade them back to school. Police and parents involved to no avail. Who would be in charge of the other 29 whilst this plays out on a school trip please?

cansu · 23/10/2023 21:21

Hotchocolate2023 it sounds like you are on this and have the right approach. I would ask for that conversation. I do actually agree that the starting point should be how can we make this work with the proviso that if it looks to be too risky then he doesn't go or goes for certain days / activities. When my dd was in mainstream she went for the day on a day when the activities were less risky.

Crazycrazylady · 23/10/2023 21:25

cansu · 23/10/2023 20:59

MrsDaniFrith
Personally as a parent my main concern would not be a send tribunal. It would be whether it was safe for my child to go. A school building with locked doors is a different safety risk to hanging off a rope on a climbing trail where safety depends on being able to follow an instructor's safety instructions to clip on. You seem determined to see this through the lense of discrimination. The school may have legitimate and sensible concerns about the safety aspects.

I agree totally with this.
You seem determined that your child will go no matter what.
TAs don't not have to go to residentials outside of working hours. They are normally volunteers and if the school can't get someone to take on the responsibility of caring for your son ( a flight risk by your own admission) I'm not sure what they can reasonably do? Are you in a position to go along? Is that an option.