To think that NT children miss out in school inclusion policies.

[empee47]

To think that inclusion policies in primary schools are almost never geared to helping academic, NT children get the best out of their education? They’re almost always designed to help the underdog - not denying this is necessary - but those at the top end of the spectrum don’t get the chance to shine as bright as they might otherwise do.

And no it’s not the kids faults. Or the parents. It’s the funding cuts. Cos if I had a TA occasionally, or printer ink then perhaps I could help some of these children. We are expected to do more and more and more with less. The government can publish whatever it likes, guidance note after note, consultation after consultation but teachers are shouting at the top of their voices that it’s impossible to actually help and teach without more resources!!

I’m excluding anyone who is persistently violent and disruptive. Children of any academic level should have the right to learn in peace and safety.

But what if you don't live near a grammar school or you can't afford private?

It's a bit short dighted really. The bright kids are t usually the ones headed for hood careers and will be paying lots of tax whereas some of the others will never work despite all these " allowances" and time spent on them at school and live on benefits

This is true but makes me wonder wtf we pay our taxes for.

I don't really understand what you mean.

You seem to be saying that for your child to "shine", other children need to be prevented from achieving their potential. So they're only shining by comparison and not on their own merit.

My academically able child doesn't need any accommodations and shines all by themselves - regardless of the schools extremely comprehensive inclusion policies.

Anyone, regardless of ability or economic background could end up on benefits fcs. 🤦‍♀️

The whole system is designed to benefit NT children, who can sit still, read easily, play nice, articulate their needs (which are already mostly accommodated) cope in groups, aren’t bothered by sensory overwhelm and have no learning difficulties. What more do you want? 🙄😂

Many years ago, in the 80’s , I had a high needs child in my class with no extra support. It was not in the UK, and in a system where you repeated a year if you failed. He occupied about 60% of the teachers attention, the other 40% spread over the other 27 kids. The brightest still did well, the weakest still did badly, but it was those just above the weakest that were the most affected. I calculated that an extra 5 kids had to repeat the year , that wouldn’t ordinarily, due to the presence of this high needs boy.

Including him in the class highly impacted the lives of those 5 kids.

Well put!

Agree OP, I’ve thought this since my eldest started school. I have nothing against learners who are below expected standards getting the support they need, but it does feel like a bit of a race to the bottom. I disagree that it’s solely down to being ND or NT though.

Clear example was reception class, DS and his phonics group had completed the phonics ‘sets’ for EYFS so began repeating what they already knew, not learning anything new, rather than moving onto the Y1 phonics scheme. One of his peers’ parent worked at the school and challenged why the group had stopped learning and got the response of ‘but they do that in Y1’. They replied that if they were below target then they’d get extra support, what extra support is available to stretch the more able? The next week the group had moved onto the Y1 phonics work and absolutely smashed it!

At the top end of the spectrum of what? The spectrum refers to the autism, if you ain't autistic, you're not on the spectrum.

And if they're not shining as bright, and they're NT, then they just ain't the brightest.

That was never the intention of this thread. The thrust of the thread is in the title!

You can use the word spectrum in many contexts, not just when it refers to autism. Substitute it for range and you may understand better.

Yeah of course. But it's more likely to be the kids that can't learn at school and see disruptive as no workplace would want then

You want your NT child to have enrichment / one on one time to help her to achieve her full potential and I get it. Surely there are clubs at school and things you can pay for yourself outside of school?
Schools absolutely should be paying extra attention to children who are struggling, hence why EHCPs exist. Children with SEN shouldn’t have to budge up for a child who is doing ok.

There's a six year old boy in my son's class that throws chairs around the room. My son casually told me that Little Jimmy has anger issues.

How has a six year old throwing chairs become so normalised that other children consider it to be unremarkable?

I went to shit sink comprehensive in the 1990's. Nobody threw chairs, because they knew there would be consequences. The teachers would have forcefully (and probably painfully) restrained and ejected violent teenagers from the classroom. The kids would have been suspended and probably expelled.

There's no way on earth that kids in my primary school would have dared to behave like that.

This touchy feely validation nonsense is wrecking education for the majority.

All children deserve an education. The current system is failing everyone

I say this a sen mum

I went to school in the 70s and 80s and taught in the 90s. There were plenty of chair throwers.

Exactly this! Some parents don’t like to accept their children aren’t the brightest and the best and they need a lot of support to attain the goals said parents have set. These parents then turn on children who actually need support. Just awful.

Were you living and teaching in a socialist experiment such as Islington?

Out in the Shires the older teachers still gave the kids a slap if they dared to square up to them.

You want 4 year olds pushed and hot housed in phonics. Far far better to let them play whilst they can and read masses to them whilst reinforcing the sounds they know. What in the race?

Nope

schools have gifted and talented programs. There are super selective grammars. Excellent comprehensives in Essex.

Is the point not that NTs are included by default a the default and the rest (mainly disabled but also other vulnerable /troubled kids) excluded? Inclusion is for those who face excessive barriers and are excluded. MOST NT children aren’t facing those barriers or exclusion. This is like the I’m not on benefits and I want benefits too statement I see on here, they’re getting something I’m not, how dare they!

imagine being envious of those with barriers and facing exclusion.

Not at all, if it isn’t right for them. By that point in the year he was almost 6, so I’m certainly not talking about four year olds fresh through the school gates. Why shouldn’t we extend their learning and keep supporting them to be challenged, if that is what they are capable of? That is what I’m saying. By comparison my youngest is nowhere near as academically able as his brother and I wouldn’t have dreamt of asking for more phonics learning for him. He spent the entirety of foundation stage outside digging and that is where and how he learnt best.