AIBU in thinking this could spread rapidly to other schools? Parents have to come into school to change NT DCs if they soil themselves.

[CwmYoy]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schools-tell-parents-if-your-34349942

It's been a long time coming but I can see it will spread now there are fewer TAs.

As long as SEN needs are taken into account I think it's a good idea.

That wasn’t your original point. Your original point was about schools using a loophole to justify the unlawful exclusions. Not about getting away with acting unlawfully.

Actually, such off-rolling is unlawful.

Which I literally corrected in a subsequent post and said myself I should have framed it differently

That’s not true. A school can let the LA know that they can’t meet the needs of a child but if it’s a mainstream school the LA can, and do, say otherwise.

we have cases where the EHCP states the mainstream can’t meet needs, the mainstream say they can’t meet needs, parents know the school can’t meet needs and are fighting the LA - but the LA still say “no mainstream have to meet needs” - we are talking ks2 non verbal children here!

a school saying they can’t meet needs of a child who’s only presenting need is support toileting would be laughed at and ignored and told to find a way!

And? I didn’t say you didn’t, my point was about your original point.

Funny how some posters have no idea what they're talking about, but still insist they're right.

If it is based on a basis of pupil safety and lack of staff prepared to deal with it, How would the parents or indeed anybody else force the issue?

Depending on the specifics of the individual case, via JR or SENDIST.

What happens if the school turns round to the LA and refuses to accept the child? Surely if it went before a court and they could prove that providing a place for child 'x' would tie up limited staff and place 29 other children in danger, then the court couldn't make the school accept.

@Sirzy
a school saying they can’t meet needs of a child who’s only presenting need is support toileting would be laughed at and ignored and told to find a way!

Counter argument, it's not a teacher job to support toilet needs, literally as it's not in their contract, and if there's no specific help then they literally can't meet that need.

Sure schools probably can't exclude the child for that, but they sure as hell can't be forced to help the child if they really decide to not do it.

@BrightYellowTrain
And? I didn’t say you didn’t, my point was about your original point

Which we already addressed before lol

@BlueSilverCats
Funny how some posters have no idea what they're talking about, but still insist they're right

Then let's talk about something unquestionable then, it's not the teacher job to change nappies, that's a undeniable fact, it's literally not part of their contract, so no matter what it can't be pushed into them.

A contract is a contract is a contract

@ARealitycheck the LA/SoS (depending on the type of school) can direct a state school to admit. JR could force a state school to admit.

If the school needs more resources they should request an EHCNA for the child &/or high needs top up funding.

Which we already addressed before lol

‘We’ did no such thing.

@Sirzy a school saying they can’t meet needs of a child who’s only presenting need is support toileting would be laughed at and ignored and told to find a way!

And the school would still refuse, perhaps, no matter how much laughter (which wouldn't happen, as you well realise). What then? It's pointless saying they have to if they just won't, surely you can see that?

Social service involvement happened at one school I taught at.

It is. Some posters obviously have a lovely level of naivety about the real situation facing schools today.

if only it was as simple as saying “sorry we can’t meet needs” and the LA saying “ok here is the place the child really needs”

It's not part of a TA contract either.

You know what else is not part of their contract? Dealing with an occasional accident. Dealing with first aid. Dealing with medical issues. Should teachers not do any of it?

Because a contract is a contract is a contract.

If school staff had a contract that stated explicitly every thing that is expected of them it would be 1000s of pages long!

what is expected and it’s a basic is to treat the young people with dignity and care and that includes ensuring they are clean and dry.

So who carries out the carer role until funding or appropriate staff are in place? If there is nobody in place then surely it does become a safety matter.

It would be like going to the school dinner hall but they haven't employed a dinner lady. Doesn't matter how many times you screamed we are entitled to school dinner, if nobody is there to cook it, it isn't available.

I’m glad our local primary school does make it work! A very small number of children start school in nappies. Several more aren’t in nappies, but need help with wiping. When required, the reception teachers and TAs put on disposable gloves and get on with it. My child didn’t need this help, but I don’t begrudge the other children. I’m just happy that my child loved reception and managed to learn a lot. Clearly, her school is doing something right.

One off issues are a completely different situation to a child that constantly needs extra support.

What then.

JR or SENDIST, depending on the specifics of the individual situation.

who carries out the carer role

An appropriate member of school staff should fulfil the school’s legal obligations.

One off issues are a completely different situation to a child that constantly needs extra support.

It doesn't matter. It's not in the contract.

And "a contract is a contract is a contract".

Who should that member of staff be if they all refuse as it is not part of their employment?

It is for the school (or LA in the case of their duty under s42 of CFA 2014) to ensure they have the appropriate (permanent or otherwise) staff. It isn’t the child’s fault.

@BlueSilverCats and @Sirzy
Occasional accident is one thing, this policy started because it went beyond accidents.

I find funny the mention of first aid and medical issues, because I'm pretty sure if a teacher didn't want to do them they can't outright be forced.

Actually, very basic medical aid aside, isn't the whole reason schools hire special help exactly because medical issues are not part of their job?

After all I imagine teachers do get training for basic medical aid, but anything outside of that isn't in their hands, if anything that's asking for a lawsuit if they do anything wrong and the child gets hurt

And no, a 1000 pages contract wouldn't be necessary.

I think part of the disagreement might be due to different generations, fact is that the times changed, in the past teachers would do a lot of stuff that isn't really their job but they had no choice, but look at how things are now, more and more responsibilities got pushed into teachers, cue the current shortage.

It's telling thet teachers don't even receive training for a lot of things they're expected to do, chances are if they denied doing something and depending on the thing, if someone tried to sue them they would win because in practice it's simply not their job.

It’s also worth noting that although no individual member of staff can be expected to carry out personal care or medical things for a child schools very much do have a duty of care to do so.

So if all staff did refuse (which is highly unlikely to happen) then the school would have to employ someone else even if that meant making budget cuts elsewhere (including not renewing staff contracts!)

Are you in England? Because in most parts of England, first cousin marriages were very much frowned on, attested both in literature, scientific observations and anecdotally. In medieval and early modern England, many parish priests or vicars kept a kin book which showed how people were related, so cousin marriage could be avoided.

In rural communities, farmers who kept animals could observe at first hand the outcome of breeding within a closed line.