What should school for ND kids look like? AIBU to suggest that a one size fits all is wrong?

[Jadebanditchillipepper]

As above really. Do you think that the current school system is right for all children? Particularly those children with SEN.

I have three children. DC 2 and 3 are both neurodiverse and school in it's present form has been at best - not meeting their needs and a worst, harmful to both of them.

The eldest of the two is now 18. They have never been happy in school. They were bullied in primary school and then in secondary school, just had no friends, hated school and were just miserable. When I spoke to the school they weren't interested - as long as they behaved and did reasonably well in school, the fact that they were unhappy didn't matter.....

Eventually, when they started to refuse to go to school, I demanded a meeting. When I suggested that DC2 might be Neurodiverse, they laughed at me. So we moved to a different school who were more switched on.

Initially, DC2 did well, but then there were problems with bullying etc again. Limped through GCSEs and eventually ended up in a small independent school for A levels.

DC3 who is also AuDHD has gone to the same school DC2 did GCSEs in. Struggled in year 7 - reasonable adjustments put in place so managed year 7. Year 8 - total disaster - reasonable adjustments completely ignored. struggling to attend school October/November. School Finally agreed to reduced timetable end of November and now managing to attend 3 lessons (out of 5) per day.

Why don't schools recognise that every child is different and that some need adjustments?

Have you got any ideas for how we fund what would be a much more expensive system?

I have 2 primary age children one ND and one NT so this just relates to primary school. Smaller class sizes, less importance on testing, simpler curriculum that allows teachers to adapt for the pupils they have. Proper support in the classroom for kids with additional needs and behaviour issues.
Both my children are home educated now but when they were in school the main difference between my primary and there’s, was that quite a few would have been in specialist schools and some would just have been expelled. I’m not saying this is the answer as all children should have access to education, however you need support and effective intervention in place for those that need it. Not all children cope in a mainstream classroom at a young age and it results in huge disruption for everyone.

Small schools do not equal more tailored support for children!

A small secondary school cannot offer the same specialised subject teaching that a larger one can or offer the same choice of subjects for GCSE or the same range of facilities.

So a small school limits choice for many pupils who cannot benefit from being taught by a specialist physics teacher or to choose to take music at GCSE or have access to a pottery studio or badminton court in art or PE. They cannot be set/streamed as effectively by attainment levels for GCSE subjects.

It means a less tailored or bespoke education for many children.

And socially, small schools can be very restrictive for some pupils who don't click with the small number of pupils in their age group.

A small primary school may have to merge age groups and have one teacher managing an even broader range of abilities and attainment levels.

At early years level, when kids are mostly learning social skills and basic functioning in a school, small classes and smaller institutions/buildings/grounds can make more sense. But from key stage 2, many children benefit from the wider range of opportunities a larger school brings.

So it really wasn't a magic solution either.

And yes, in the world of work, people then can make some choices about the type of role or company they want to work for but they aren't necessarily able to get their ideal job even if it does exist.

Most adults still sometimes have to do things they don't particularly enjoy like attending meetings or present and get on with work in less-optimal settings even in a role more tailored to their needs.

It takes practice to be able to do that - schools do need to make children so things that aren't ideal for them sometimes because then they practice and learn the skills to do that.
Better they do that in school than in their first job.

I'm not advocating for children to be permanently miserable or in completely inappropriate settings for all their education! But everyone needs to adapt and that takes practice and encouragement from teachers but sets them up for working life in a way that is probably far more important than a level 8 Vs level 9 in History GCSE

I tend to agree that smaller schools aren't always the better option. My DS has suspected ASD and mild/ moderate LD, his school has such a small group of people that he hasn't been able to find anyone he really gels with and because of that he hasn't got the chance to make that one solid connection. I'm hoping he finds his tribe in high school where the pool of people is much bigger!

Maybe the question is "What is the point of education?" Rather than, "How can we get all these kids through the system ?"
Employers want degree educated young people for jobs that absolutely don't require that level of focused education. This creates a huge pressure in the system to achieve non useful skills and constantly increases the somewhat redundant 'rigour' of the exam system as ways of beating it improve along side the increasing difficulty.
If the pandemic shone a light on anything it was that a lot of people who were very well paid were not the essential workers we actually need most.
If education included merit for less academic skills there would be more equity of outcome and different behaviours and methods of learning and achieving would be more acceptable.

In Norway, the kids leave school with one mark.

That mark is a combination of :

1. One exam in one subject only drawn from a hat
2. Behaviour
3. Absence

That would be terrible for any child who gets the exam in a subject they’re weak in.

I think there's too much sitting down and academic learning for all ages really. Lots of 4, 5 and 6 year olds aren't ready to sit still for hours each day whereas if they waited until they were older this would avoid a lot of issues. Then at the other end a lot of people aren't suited to academic work, are never going to work in office jobs and would be better off with more practical options from a much earlier age rather than going through school thinking they are no good and probably disrupting their classes.

I also think screens are the cause of a lot of behavioural problems. Screens reduce the amount of time children are exercising and learning their motor skills, concentration and creativity. Most kids don't get enough exercise.

That and bad diet. Too much processed food.

Especially at the poorer end of society where parents have less money, space and knowledge to make better choices.

Yeah…What a strange system. Picking a subject at random??

Like a lot of ND (and NT) kids I had a very uneven pattern of achievement. That would’ve screwed me over if the subject they picked out of a hat for me was maths, physics or geography. And that mediocre grade would’ve told colleges and employers nothing about how good I was at English, French, Latin, History, Biology etc.

I agree it's really strange. And lots of parents seem to advocate for the scandanavian system without possibly knowing too much about it!

At one point people would talk about south Korea as a great model of education and having taught there I would just sigh.

There are 9 year olds falling asleep in class there, because they’ve been studying at the private academy the night before until 10pm

Anyway, the reason I spoke of the system in Norway, was because of the behaviour mark, and many people on this thread have been talking about disruptive behaviour. I wonder if they have less problems there because there is a mark attached to behaviour.

Is there a parent of a child with an ND dx that thinks Labour's go to 'inclusive' model of large comprehensives that can cater to 'all needs' is the best we can do?

I've got two vastly different ND children who need different things but overall needed to be in a small and caring setting to achieve at all.

The noise levels alone were wearing them into a dysregulated mess day to day.

As the parent of a ND child, I honestly think that at some point there will be a state supported online school. It won't answer all problems or be suitable for everyone, but it would help a lot of kids. It has been transformative for my teen but I realise we are so lucky that I can be home to supervise this, and that we can afford it.

This is a very well observed comment, especially "The whole thing is contradictory ".

Therein lies the problem - the systems itself is neurotic, no one is happy (although some are considerably unhappier than others, of course).

I am glad that at least some teachers, such as yourself, are aware of it. As a parent, I have seen little evidence of this awareness in my dealings with secondary school. And we are currently Y11. Only now, where DD's cohort is The Most Special (i.e. doing their GCSEs, so the most valuable for the school) are a couple of teachers saying 'yes, you are right, this is an impossible situation for your child and many other children'.

Small schools do not equal more tailored support for children!
A small secondary school cannot offer the same specialised subject teaching that a larger one can or offer the same choice of subjects for GCSE or the same range of facilities.
So a small school limits choice for many pupils who cannot benefit from being taught by a specialist physics teacher or to choose to take music at GCSE or have access to a pottery studio or badminton court in art or PE. They cannot be set/streamed as effectively by attainment levels for GCSE subjects.
It means a less tailored or bespoke education for many children.

That is an over generalisation. DD1 went to a specialist speech and language school in Y6 for children in the normal intelligence range. Some also had autism and/or ADHD. She went into a class of 10 children, in theory for the juniors, but in reality mainly Y5 - 6. There was a specialist teacher, two classroom assistants and a full time speech and language therapist. This meant, in subjects like literacy and numeracy, they were likely to be in a group of 2 - 3. DD1 was always with the speech and language therapist, but I assume they rotated the other staff around the groups. There were also occupational therapists to do individual and group work with children, as in PE. DD had intensive individual and group speech and language therapy. They taught her many skills, we couldn’t.

At secondary, there were two classes of 10 in her Y7. They had specialist teachers for science, PE, pottery, etc and the class teachers taught their class the rest. They used vertical streaming across Y7- 9 by ability for literacy and numeracy. DD1 could only do foundation GCSEs and Art, because of her profound specific learning difficulties; but other children could go to the local FE college for any GCSEs, the school didn’t do. Speech and language disordered children tend to be very visual, and they gravitated more to those subjects like art, tech, photography, etc.

Friendships groups were not a problem - DD1 was very sociable and popular among her school mates. Every child there had been bullied in mainstream, according to the head, and they were nice people. DD2 used to visit with us, and met all the other children - she preferred them to the children in her own mainstream school (because she was ND herself).

The school fundraiser for a sports hall and swimming pool. It had a pottery studio, specific classrooms for science or cookery, so I am not sure how @MojoMoon can say children in small special schools can’t access these?

The school was a national centre for excellence and in the top 5% for value added. Some of DD1’s friends got jobs (mainly in fields, which didn’t have high language and literacy demands) and others went to university to do visual subjects like photography, graphics, etc.

I don’t recognise what @MojoMoon is talking about, with regard to the experience of DD1 and her friends.

@HorseAreBetterThanHumans this is long, long overdue

It takes practice to be able to do that - schools do need to make children so things that aren't ideal for them sometimes because then they practice and learn the skills to do that.Better they do that in school than in their first job
This 100%. Like many older adults, I just don't understand this sudden (10 or so years) of increased number of children needing more tailored and adapted learning.

I can't help but wonder how much of the above is part of the issue. How many kids are failing to adapt because they are growing up believing that it's the world's responsibility to adapt to them rather than the opposite, or ultimately, a bit of both.

My second is extremely extroverted and shy. Very bright but no interest at all in showing it. He either had teacher who never got the chance to recognise it, or others who did and put pressure on him to express. Neither worked for him. He either retreated into himself, became bored and depressed, or he became overwhelmed, stressed and anxious.

It was my role, as his mum, to help navigate through it finding the right balance. This involved a mix of empathy and pushing his boundaries. The biggest stage was when I told him he HAD to get a job after his GCSEs. He didn't want to because he wanted nothing that involved dealing with the public. It scared him to his core. He applied for a stacking job in a supermarket not realising that it also involved being at the till. The worse of his life when only his second day he was told to do so. Of course he survived it even if it left him exhausted. Of course it git a bit easier each time, up to the point when he didn't mind and even at times had good anecdotes to tell.

He now has a good job, some of it involving dealing with the public. He had to learn to contact people when he faced an issue and worse, make a phone call! It will never be a totally relaxing thing to do, but it doesn't make him freeze any longer. Most importantly, he has learned that it is
just an essential part of normal life and focusing on avoidance is only going to make it worse long term.

All this is an essential gradual learning stage that start in the first years of school. I am really concerns with the number of kids who are given immunity to go through the process on the basis that it is 'painful' for them.

Of course, there are inevitably children whose anxiety is such that avoidance has to be a priority, but I can't but wonder how many fall under the longer term detriment of avoidance of what is 'typical' social learning.

The school fundraiser for a sports hall and swimming pool. It had a pottery studio, specific classrooms for science or cookery, so I am not sure how can say children in small special schools can’t access these?

It is not usually possible for very small class sizes & excellent facilities to be made available on typical state mainstre levels of funding!

All children would probably achieve more if taught in classes of 12 with 2 TAs, masses of expensive facilities and extra specialist tuition. We cannot afford this for all children, and its not fair to allocate a huge share of education funding to provide this to a minority of children at the expense of all the others.

The point is, is there a different approach to the current one *that doesn't cost an amount our country cannot afford".

Absolutely this. You feel sooo stretched allllĺ the time. There are 5 pupils in my current class that genuinely take up so much time due to various needs and lack of available support that many of the other quiet neurotypical children get over looked. The solution is obviously to have smaller classes for all but the funding is not there to support anything like the changes we need. The future is scary.

Given that ND people are just as diverse and different as NT, and a square peg in a round hole analogy works pretty well for education. I do think ND children are at a much higher risk at not thriving though because there isn’t enough resources to help them thrive. Obviously there should be, and that would be the ideal scenario.

We cannot afford this for all children, and its not fair to allocate a huge share of education funding to provide this to a minority of children at the expense of all the others.

It’s a whole lot cheaper, than keeping the prison population in and out of prison all their adult lives! Iirc, from hearing a woman talk about teaching prisoners to read, over 90% of the prison population did not have the level of literacy required to function adequately in adult life (equivalent age 10?).

It’s a general rule, the worse the child’s speech and language, the worse the behaviour. If they don’t get the help they need in specialist language provision, they are likely to end up instead in PRUs or SEMH provision, particularly boys, who externalise into challenging behaviour - whereas girls tend to internalise their struggles into anxiety and depression.

The governor of a secure unit told a colleague of mine, if he had to make all his staff redundant, the last one to go, would be the speech and language therapist. Every young person coming in, had a language disorder. I imagine a place in a secure unit is pretty expensive too - but unlikely to remediate the difficulties?

What was the funding level per child at this school Vs in mainstream education?

Of course, with sufficient funding, small schools could provide all this and horse riding lessons as well.
But it is not affordable to do for all children and so not realistic as a policy option.

And the point was in response to people saying "schools should be smaller" in response to the question about how children can get education tailored to their needs. Small schools may well deliver a great education for suitable pupils but schools being smaller does not automatically mean a child gets an education tailored to their needs either.

But it is not affordable to do for all children and so not realistic as a policy option.

Nobody said it was affordable for all children. However, there are ND children, who cannot cope in mainstream. Imo, it is cruel of society to leave them there.

See the report:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27742716.amp

It estimated in 2014 that autism was costing the UK £32 billion (most of which was on adults with ASD) and asks the question, could savings be made on the costs on adults, if there were earlier interventions in children’s lives?

It is short sighted to say the country can’t afford to spend more on education for children with ASD, who in 2007 were costing the UK £2.5 billion and then go on to spending £25 billion plus on adults? A fuller version of this report can be found on the Learning Disabilities Foundation website in 2007. How much more is the UK spending now on autism for adults, given inflation and cost of living rises in energy, etc, since 2007?

(A clue - some people with autism are in ATUs, which cost £3,500 - £4,000 a week, iirc?)

I feel there is a no one size fits all as each child is unique, like their diagnosis