School won’t/can’t do anything about SEN child causing distress

[Rantypanties]

I had a phone call from my child’s primary school stating that the SEN child in their class touched them & another child ‘over their clothes in their private area’. This is the 3rd incident of this nature happen in the class (first 2 were ‘tickling in that area’) and the 4th time something serious has happened that has involved him being sent home. It’s never witnessed by the teachers or his 121 assistant (but bullying at the school never seems to be so it’s not just this child).

The child is a lot taller and bigger than the children and although they’ve grown up with him for the past 3 years and they’ve all muddled along with no problems, there are now occasions where children have been scared of him chasing them/hitting out and shouting in class.

He has got a place at a local SEN school but apparently the LA won’t fund the transport for the 26 mile round trip so he can’t go according to his mum (they can’t afford the petrol and the dad’s banned from driving).

So my question is what can we do with a reluctant school? Can we, as parents, put the pressure on the LA to get his transport fully funded so this child can get the best out of his schooling and move to a school more suited to his needs. The school are keen to downplay the incident and I’ve seen the child is back in school today so I’m not sure what lesson has been learnt here, but they obviously cannot cope if he’s being left long enough to touch other children inappropriately and scare children into not wanting to play outside because he’s out there.

Just looking for advice because it seems to me this is escalating and something needs to be done for the safety of all of children in the class.

The chances of their being found capable of forming criminal intent are nevertheless vanishingly small. In fact, given that OP suggests he is 7/8, the chances are nil.

For a child placed at a school more than two miles from their home (children 8 and under) or more than three miles (over 8s) the only reason the LA can give for not providing it is that they are not attending their nearest suitable school.

This issue was brought up in the context of the police being called in and what, if anything, they could or would do. In that context, the intent of the alleged perpetrator is utterly relevant. If they are incapable of forming the required intent to commit a crime, they cannot be charged with it, let alone convicted. The age of criminal responsibility is 10.

If, say, X kills Y, but X is so mentally ill that he has no idea what he is doing, or sincerely but delusionally believes that he is, say, saving his family from certain death, X cannot be convicted. I am sure that if you are Y's relative you are very unhappy about that, and will no doubt point out that Y is still dead when he shouldn't be, but that's the law. For what it's worth, X would almost certainly be sectioned for a long time.

Every child is entitled by law to full time education. Talking about sorting the morals of a child with a severe learning disability is just crass.

Sorry, whether through typos or otherwise it's very difficult to understand this post. Would you mind rewriting it?

It says so, upthread. Two year olds behave in all sorts of undesirable ways, face it. However, that in itself is irrelevant - the point is you cannot demonise a child who is severely learning disabled and has very little idea what he is doing or what is and is not acceptable social behaviour.

Define "getting away with this". Are you saying he should be punished for doing something he had no way of knowing was wrong? How do you suggest that should happen in a way that he would stand a chance in hell of understanding and learning from?

Or might it be better if the LA ensured he was in a specialist school capable of teaching him over time about social conduct?

I think this is probably correct.

It does seem odd to me that the LA have just flat out refused. But it makes a lot more sense that the parents have chosen a school that isn’t the closest.

If that is the case, then that’s on them. And if I was the OP I’d be 10x more furious that this could be resolved so easily.

It’s the same few names that appear too. It’s like they get some sick kick out this shocking situation.

The parents can't just choose a school as the LA have to agree to fund it and if they are agreeing to fund it it they are agreeing that it's the only school that csn meet the child's needs .,private specialists schools csn cosy £££££.,s

Then I think I’m out of ideas as to why the funding isn’t just given. Similar to when you apply for nursery funding via the LA. It’s just a bog standard application that is sent away, then processed.

expensive special schools are a completely different ball game to a bog standard nursery application. It's a completely different process. and much more complex.

These school can cost 70-100k per annum. Add in taxi twice a day with a chaperone and you are talking easily 6 figures. LA often use delaying tactics and make parents appeal to tribunal. Tribunal waiting times are current 12 months. It means denying a child the right education and transport for a year, will save a huge amounts of money. play that dirty game with numerous kids and it saves millions. Parents sometimes make a complaint to the LGO and if the ombudsman decides in their favour, they get a competition - usually a few hundred pound. So it makes total financial sense for LAs to play dirty games in the names of saving tens of thousands of pounds as the 'penalty' is in essence just a reward: It pays to break the law. Hugely so. HRH .

Not necessarily if, say, it's a maintained specialist in the next district. The LA can have reciprocal arrangements and the funding difference isn't worth fighting against parental preference at tribunal when they will lose anyway.

Example, local maintained specialist primary "Cherry tree school" caters for children with severe learning disabilities and states it can meet Joseph's SEN, but he will have to wait until someone leaves, likely moving in September. However, parents also visited "Oak Tree school" in the neighbouring LA, which is a brand new maintained specialist school run by the Oak academy MAT, has places because it's new, and they also state they can meet Joseph's needs. The parent strongly prefers Oak Tree because it has a place available sooner and a heated pool on site, but whilst this is a reasonable preference the need for hydrotherapy is not specified in the EHCP, so it's not that Cherry Tree cannot meet needs. The cost difference to the LA for the school places is not great, but the transport costs makes Oak Tree a lot more expensive to the LA. They can refuse to name Oak Tree and risk parent going to tribunal but that is a huge waste of money as they (LA) will undoubtedly lose. So they offer the place at Oak Tree, but without transport.

I assume the parents then apply and appeal for the transport? And the LA often loses but saves money whilst it awaiting appeal?

Yes the parent would have to appeal for the transport, which they (parent) might lose on the grounds of efficient use of resources if the LA can prove that their nearer school could just as well have met need.

A great example of someone having no understanding of the process and the hoops you have to jump through for a specialist place.

It's very expensive due to higher staff ratios and transport, plus the additional therapeutic interventions such as OT, SLT and equipment. This is why it is difficult. A standard pupil is given 6k of funding, my son's mainstream place with enhanced care cost an extra 18k without transport.

But, not education these children appropriately will cost more in the long run. Exhausted parents homeschooling and them being segregated from peers means higher chance of residential care in the long run and no longer living with family. It's very much a false economy penny pinching.

Who exactly has suggested that that this is acceptable?

I can only tell you what I did, as the Schools Business Manager, which was to contact the local MP's Secretary. She was dynamite and had the problem solved in a week. Thank you Sarah!

There is clout, but you need to know how to find it and use it to the school and child's advantage to shake the money loose when the easiest answer is "nope".

The real disgrace in this day is that the special school is 26 miles away, and that there are so many children that have needs shoved into schools where they simply cannot cope or access any form of education.

That's my understanding, too, unless the law has changed since I was setting up SEN appeals for an LEA 20-odd years ago.

When the designated school was over 3 miles away (2 miles for younger children), the LEA's school transport team would contract a daily taxi, and someone to accompany them on the journey.

There were scores of children having this sort of transport provided, so many that the school transport team had a full-time person whose job was just sorting that out.

It's so sad to read that it has come to this. I'd be submitting a complaint, OP, and if that doesn't achieve anything, take it to the local government ombudsman.

I wasn’t referring to the overall specialist application, obviously that’s not simple. I was referring to the time after that specialist place is granted and funding is arranged. If the council is obliged to provide transport, then that should follow naturally.

The only people anyone needs to be angry at are the government for inadequate funding.

School governor here. Do people actually think an EHCP and 1:1 care plan covers the cost of a TA and the amount of supervision and care a child like this needs? Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. You can demand ‘my child is entitled to as outlined in the plan and the school should have done X’ all you like. Volunteer at a school and come back to chat to me in 3-6 months.

Add in general cuts to budgets and an ENORMOUS rise in SEN, where you might have multiple children with EHCPs plus a large portion of children with other non-EHCP SEN but who need interventions - and this is what happens.

You would hope so but often it's not a simple process And LA,s can and do drag their feet which is in no ones best interests .

Of course it doesn't but non of this is the fault of the disabled child or their family.

Did you read my post?

Which part of “the only people you should be angry at are the government” suggests this is the child or families fault?

Isn't the simpler option moving your DD into another class or different school? That would be far quicker( and achievable) than 'forcing' the LA to pay for his transport.