Nursery refused place aibu

[Honeyplease]

Saw a lovely nursery 2 weeks ago. Looking to start my 2yo son who is currently with a childminder. I mentioned that he had tried preschool but didnt get on with it too well (he is only just 2 and the preschool had mostly 3/4 year olds) I also mentioned that I suspect him to be neurodiverse but I wasn’t sure (no diagnosis or anything) he is developmentally on track he just has odd quips.

Was given a reg form, sent it back same day. Waited.. nothing. sent another email, and another.. tried calling. Left a voicemail. Basically 2 weeks of chasing. Nothing.

Today I finally received an email back from the owner.

“The problem I have in securing the place is we already have children coming through with significant needs and I'm concerned having spoken to our special educational needs coordinator that we won't have the capacity to give your son the the quality of care he deserves just like any other child.”

I am stunned! Aibu? surely they cannot do this.

Doesn't matter if the child qualifies for funding or not, any setting can say they are not able to provide sufficient quality of care, especially if they are saying they already have too many SEN children as is and cannot take on any more

They are not discriminating! They have clearly said they are not able to take on any more children with additional needs due to the amount of children with needs they already have, that is not discrimination. That is a setting lookng out for the needs and care of all the children they already have in and also looking out for the health and welfare of the staff

That is not what I replied to though, is it? What you posted, and I replied to, stated that that it would be picked up by the HV and nursery/childminder which just isn’t always true even for those with significant needs.

you’re starting to digress though really, OP stated her child is on track with their milestones, I would not be describing a speech delay or meltdowns as “quirks”, they may be missed by professionals in such case not doing their jobs properly, but SEN support requirements speaks for itself, I don’t believe education for children and young people is ever a one size fits all anyway and some children cope with it better than others, but there are children with clear support needs, again, those on the threshold may be missed, but then do they really qualify for the level of 1 to 1 support some more affected children require (and it’s in short supply).

It is not digressing to point out your post is incorrect. If you don’t want people to respond to your posts on a public forum you shouldn’t post incorrect nonsense. Even your latest assumption that those who need 1:1 will be noticed by the HV and nursery/childminder is incorrect. They don’t always. Plenty of DC who go on to need 1:1 &/or an SS are not noticed until school age.

But you’re almost making a whole thread about it when OP has stated their child is on track, and wanted to jump the gun whilst other parents that have identified their child’s additional needs and going through the long process of finding out why (if they ever will) they’re not quite on track, the nursery have told OP they simply don’t have the staff to meet OP’s perceived additional support needs for her child (so they’ve taken OP’s word for it that her child requires more support) then OP is upset a nursery dare be honest with the staffing limitations they currently have.

but if you want me to write “ok you’re right some children get missed” there you go, I’m fortunate I’ve had a really positive experience with the professionals involved in my child’s development, but as a parent, they are not “quirks”, you KNOW.

almost making a whole thread about it

This is my fourth post about it. All responding to (more than 4) posts from you. Hardly a whole thread. And if I am guilty of making a whole thread so are you since you have posted more posts about it.

Is it a state or private nursery OP?

Nope. Nursery’s don’t have to take any child especially if they don’t feel they can provide the level of care required. No brianer. Sure the likes of you and her moaning would be the first to complain if they couldn’t provide what he needed. But mum needs to stop self diagnosing and telling everyone he is or poss is ND when she is not an expert and probably got her info off another mom or Facebook.

OP says in post 2 that HV etc are aware and asking her to keep a diary of stuff etc.

And at 2 at least- a great deal of children's issues are not known. Many get diagnosed later, or as adults etc. Even if the mum knows, professionals might not acknowledge it.

I'd imagine most are not picked up under 3 at least, or 4. It takes much longer for many. A mum might know but professionals can ignore parents for a long time.

As you know, there's a range of visibility of difficulties, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. Sorry your LO is struggling so much.

My ds (20) is ND and every teacher he has ever had always wished they had a class of pupils like him! He did have one to one support at primary school and an IEP but the school didn't really apply it and after his one to one died very unexpectedly they didn't replace her. Senco at his next school actually apologised for their total lack of engagement with him due to him not being at all disruptive.

It's literally against the law to refuse to take a child because they may be disabled, without seeking to establish if there are reasonable adjustments that can be made. In this case they did nothing. I am not sure if you know this, but disability is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The nursery didn't do anything to establish what the child's needs might be, or whether they could meet them. Just blanket said nope, no way.

And mothers generally are the first to know, when their kids are ND. I certainly did, and I'm not alone in that.

A nursery can't refuse to take a child because they are black, nor because they have two mums. It's discriminatory prejudice, and contra the Equality Act. Just as refusal to accept on grounds of disability, with no attempt to establish the needs and ability to adjust to those needs, is.

@NoWayNarc totally agree. I wouldn't have said anything as there has been no previous concerns with the child in other settings. Unfortunately OP shot herself in the foot & they do have the right to refuse if they feel it isn't the right setting for the child.

Quoting the equality act doesn’t make you right. Your logic they have to accept ANY child even if they can’t provide for them because if the equality act …. Bye now.

I am right, because that's the law. Your witty riposte of "bye now" notwithstanding, all businesses must comply with the Equality Act.

The Equality Act protects disabled people, of any age, and any business must explain how, and why, they can't make sensible adjustments to meet need. Because that's the law of the land.

The OP specifically said nobody asked any questions, and her child is not yet diagnosed with anything. You said they could reject a child for any reason, and I corrected you and said no, they must make reasonable adjustments, where possible, and in this case the child needed nothing extraordinary. I corrected your false statement and you are now moving the goalposts, because your statement was, bluntly, idiotic.

My first LLM was from Cambridge. My second was a research LLM in international law. These are a while ago and I make no claims to specialist knowledge... but this is so, so basic that the CAB site could enlighten you.

You are comprehensively wrong, and facile retorts just make you look more foolish. Your choice, of course.

But there is also the EYFS, which talks about meeting the child's needs. If they already know they can't possibly push themselves to stretch to another child who may have extra needs, then they would be opening themselves up to all sorts of issues with ofsted.

I'm sure the other 40 families wouldn't be thrilled when the nursery closes down, because this was the straw that broke the camels back, because they took on a child they did not have the resources for.

If I've already got a couple of 12mo and I have the choice to take on another 12mo or a 3yo, I'd choose the 3yo because I don't have the resources for another none walker, in nappies, needing spoon fed etc. Age is also a protected factor...

Don't mention neurodiversity unless you have a diagnosis.
It might just be a quirk or one symptom of a very diverse range.
You'd potentially be limiting a place and unnecessarily labelling your child.

Age is not a protected characteristic in the Equality Act under the age of 18, no. Again, that's the law. Because we discriminate for and against minors all the time, for valid reasons.

And nobody says you MUST take a child with SEN - if the child's needs cannot be met via reasonable adjustments, you can decline. But you MUST explore what the needs are, and whether those needs could, in fact, be reasonably met at sensible cost, and without great expense. Because otherwise, bigots could just blanket refuse to accept anyone with a disability. So it must be a sensible, and justifiable, refusal.

That is clearly not the case, here, because nobody spoke to the OP, her child does not presently have a diagnosis, and they are meeting all expected milestones.

It's therefore against the law to refuse to take the child. It has to be a decision made about this individual child, after careful reflection on whether the nursery could adjust to meet needs.

There is also funding available from the LA for kids with SEN in the early years. A friend's child had a 1:1 funded, in fact, at the pre-school stage.

Luckily for her, her son's nursery was staffed by professionals, rather than ignorant people operating on prejudice.

And where are you finding the extra staff from to work on 1:1, even IF you get the funding? Nurseries can barely staff to the minimum.

That's a problem right now, absolutely - my daughter's 1:1 was also a recruitment issue (especially at level 5). Recruitment is a massive issue in all care and education sectors.

That doesn't change the legal position, though, which is that a nursery must engage in good faith, and seek to establish whether needs can be met. They can't just say 'nope' without any such assessment. Because that is discriminatory.

And in the OP's situation, the nursery didn't bother to establish needs, or have any sort of a conversation. Which is, again, straightforwardly unlawful.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to understand that a nursery may already know they are at breaking point with staffing issues and SEN load, and they know they cannot possibly accept another child who needs even an assessment, let alone intervention. To take on a child they know they don't have the time for would be negligent.

Again, they don't know they don't have the time unless they engage with the parents, and/or the paperwork, and determine that.

And as politely as possible, your view is not lawful, if your view is that it's fine to just blanket refuse. The law applies to everyone. And if people breach the Equality Act, they expose the nursery to liability, which is likely to be rather more of a headache than a sensible assessment would have been.

An autistic kid may be no bother at all. An aggressive, difficult child with no SEND at all may be. It's just discriminatory not to try to look into the actual child - disability isn't a mould. Disabled children are unique individuals. Both my two have EHCPs, but they needed no extra help at all, at preschool stage. In fact they were angels behaviourally (hypercompliant - they like rules) and very much ahead of expected levels in all the obvious ways.

This blanket refusal to see disabled kids as individuals is why is is discriminatory to refuse to take each one case-by-case.

There is also funding available from the LA for kids with SEN in the early years. A friend's child had a 1:1 funded, in fact, at the pre-school stage.

But that funding, IF you are able to get it, nowhere near covers the cost of 1:1 in my LA, even if the child were only attending for 15 hours.
That funding is a finite pot, Nurseries can't just receive it, because they ask for it.

The Equality Act means that providers should see how they can make accommodations to accept any child that walks in the door. If the nursery haven’t asked for more information about what specifically the child might need and refused a place then yes, they’d be in breach.

Once they’d gathered that information, seen if it was feasible to make the reasonable accommodations, and then come to a conclusion that they wouldn’t be able to support the child, they would not be in breach to refuse the child. It couldn’t be because of a blanket “no child with autism” or “no child with hearing difficulties” approach but would have to take into consideration the children’s specific needs and the provider’s current set up/cohort etc.

I think this makes sense.

I know somebody who wanted a particular school. She went to the (over subscribed) school and asked for a place for her daughter and immediately told them the child had a mild learning difficulty. I know that they are waiting for a diagnosis and as yet have not received one. In an instance like that, the school should not be obliged to allocate a space for fear of inequality surely?