AIBU to complain about safety after violent behaviour in primary class?

[TeutoburgForest]

NC for this and posting here for traffic

My child is in primary school in what has always been a lovely class. Last year a child transferred in who had been removed from his mum’s care so obviously issues going on, now living with a different family member.

The child is extremely violent and threatens other children for telling the teachers. They have been temporarily excluded at least twice - the latest for two days. Yesterday the child attacked my child and gave a death threat. The children in the class do not feel safe and obviously are not safe! I pushed to meet the head and executive head today and asked them at what threshold this behaviour meets the grounds for permanent exclusion. The answer was basically - it won’t. The child will be given extra support and referrals will be made etc but the head said the bar for permanent exclusion is so high it basically won’t happen. I said (because this kid already had a mountain of support) so basically for the next two years the rest of class have to put up with things as they are? Silence. I’m appalled that the majority of kids are used in what feels like a social experiment so that a tiny minority get to be educated ‘in their community’. I’m going to the board of governors/education trust executive team with complaints re safeguarding of the rest of the class - any advice on how to do this effectively welcome.

Can imagine most parents of children who are being violently attacked at school and all concern is focused on the attacker care where that child goes? They only want their child to stop getting hurt?

Yes, agree with this. Focus on your child

And perhaps ask to see safety policies. And eho would be accountable if yiur child is injured by a fellow pupil

‘Putting him on notice’! How rude! The way some parents speak to teachers is simply not acceptable.

You need to focus on your child and ask how they can get kept safe.

What consequences are those? I am a primary school governor and have sat on a permanent exclusion panel quite recently. Can't say I am aware of any negative consequences (other than for the poor child of course).

The head was telling the truth, although I’m surprised they shared so much about another child with you. I am a teacher in a class with multiple violent and aggressive children. We have a child who has genuinely been suspended for 20+ days this year but as he has an EHCP in place, we haven’t yet reached the threshold for permanent exclusion.

I’m sorry your child is in this position and I would seriously move them if you are able. The situation won’t improve for some time and even if the behaviour improves, that daily fear and feeling of danger will stay with your child for a long time. I would also raise the issue with school formally as it will all count towards their evidence for getting support for this child. You need to follow the complaints procedure rather than going straight to governors.

OP, if you haven't already, get a copy of the school's behaviour and exclusion policies, which will hourly provide some clarity as you navigate this.

I do also agree with PPs advising you to tackle this by asking how the school is going to keep your child safe, as that is something they can respond to you in detail about.

This child is physically assaulting children. You can go to the police about this. Yes, he is not yet of an age for criminal charges to be pressed but it will certainly ramp up the support being provided to him and his care giver. If the parents of all the children being assaulted were to do the same you might get somewhere.

A different perspective. I had a child like this in my class and it got to the point he was throwing chairs across the classroom and threatening to stab members of staff with scissors.

I emailed the governors quoting the health and safety act. Absolutely everything centred around the behaviour of this child and I could no longer teach properly. I refused to teach the class unless this child was removed. It clearly wasn't the right setting for him and I simply wanted to teach. Once he was removed it was better and the children felt far safer, but I was that burned out I left.

I'm now out of teaching funnily enough.

It's an unpopular opinion but unfortunately there's no helping some children. Not at the mercy of 29 others anyway. You can use every ounce of your energy and goodwill to help a child desperately in need but then you end up with no energy left to help the rest and they do suffer, academically and mentally.

Yes it's unfortunate for the child, but it can take a miracle to undo years of awful parenting and upbringing, or to properly support a child with serious SEND. It's too big a job for the everyday teacher, yet schools are expected to do it under the label 'inclusion'. It's ludicrous.

In the school I was a governor in, a child with severe behaviour problems caused by SEN was taught/managed separately in an office with a member of staff. No whole classroom teaching at all. This went on for almost a year while his alternative place was being arranged.

Yes it does. I know of at least two children excluded permanently

I totally understand that. What I don't get is what the poster means by becoming more "right wing"... Do they want the child to be disappeared?

Yes go private OP. Independent won’t put up with that, if it happened there, the child would be out. The more stories I read on here with state education and its limitations, I’m stunned how bad it has become (and unlikely to improve).

Once at private, you will recognise that a lot of parents are at private because of similar situations to yours. Few go private because of the fancy hats, contrary to popular mumsnet beliefs!

@TeutoburgForest With everything in place, but the child is not improving, the head can exclude. They have gone a long way to help but see attached. It’s the government advice. They can exclude, they just prefer not to.

From the same guidance:

Pupils who have a social worker, including looked-after
children, and previously looked-after children
58. For the majority of children who have a social worker, this is due to known
safeguarding risks at home or in the community: over half are in need due to abuse or
neglect.40 For children with a social worker, education is an important protective factor,
providing a safe space for children to receive support, be visible to professionals and
realise their potential. When children are not in school, they miss the protection and
opportunities it can provide, and become more vulnerable to harm. Headteachers should
balance this important reality with the need to ensure calm and safe environments for all
pupils and staff, so should devise strategies that take both of these aspects into account.
59. Where a pupil has a social worker, e.g. because they are the subject of a Child in
Need Plan or a Child Protection Plan, and they are at risk of suspension or permanent
exclusion, the headteacher should inform their social worker, the Designated
Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and the pupil’s parents to involve them all as early as possible
in relevant conversations.
60. Where a looked-after child (LAC) is likely to be subject to a suspension or permanent
exclusion, the Designated Teacher (DT) should contact the local authority’s VSH as soon
as possible. The VSH, working with the DT and others, should consider what additional
assessment and support need to be put in place to help the school address the factors
affecting the child’s behaviour and reduce the need for suspension or permanent
exclusion. Where relevant, the school should also engage with a child’s social worker,
foster carers, or children’s home workers.
40 Children in need, Reporting year 2023 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK (explore-education-
statistics.service.gov.uk)
2461. All looked-after children should have a Personal Education Plan (PEP) which is part
of the child’s care plan or detention placement plan.
41 This should be reviewed every
term and any concerns about the pupil's behaviour should be recorded, as well as how
the pupil is being supported to improve their behaviour and reduce the likelihood of
exclusion. Monitoring of PEPs can be an effective way for VSHs to check on this.
62. Where previously looked-after children face the risk of being suspended or
permanently excluded, the school should engage with the child’s parents and the
school’s DT. The school may also seek the advice of the VSH on strategies to support
the pupil.42

The school will be having make sure that they have done all humanly possible. There are also several paragraphs regarding pupils with SEND and the Equality Act 2010.

They may not be able to permanently exclude the child but they can definitely educate (babysit due to behaviour) the child out of class. I’m a 1:1 TA and support children that can’t be in class.

Sometimes, it’s the only way to keep the rest of the children safe in the classroom.

Thanks everyone for the information and support. At least it seems that there is precedent for this child being excluded from the main classroom if not from the school itself. Just to confirm, a looked after child comes with additional money for the school so this could hire a 1-2-1 potentially?

Issues like this are going to become much more prevalent due to Labour's new policy to make mainstream schools even more more 'inclusive', meaning many more children with complex needs are going to be entering the system. I can't see this being good for anyone, but as a teacher, what do I know?

We are fortunate to (just) have enough money to send my child to private school at least until the 11+ but it will mean penny-pinching . It will have a huge impact on our day-to-day and I feel aggrieved it’s necessary just to ensure he isn’t physically attacked. Anyway, I’ll get over the self-pity shortly and start writing those letters of complaint. Thanks again

No, it is about £2700 a year, nowhere near enough for one to ones. One to ones are becoming rarer and rarer, even for those with significant need.

The money they come with for each term in my area would fund just over a week of full time 1:1.
The money is simply not in budgets.