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.

Honestly, if it were as easy as different coloured paper, ear defenders and stimming it wouldn’t be problematic. I teach KS2: I have one child, profoundly autistic who is prone to biting me and other children if he’s dysregulated. He is non verbal and variably continent working at nursery level. Another has PDA and extremely dysregulated behaviour. On Friday afternoon I was kicked in my chest, and had to evacuate my class three times. He regularly leaves the class and tries to escape school. local authority reliably inform us mainstream is the right choice for both. Of course I can adapt and differentiate for the children you reference. Over the many many years I’ve taught, I’ve had blind children, children with dyslexia, Sp and L issues, dyscalculia. But what HAS changed, is the fact that my “inclusive” classroom now has to meet the needs of the two children I reference above. The children just at standard or above don’t get a look in - this is the very sad reality.

Yeah, ND kids get all the advantages in life. They’re just so lucky. 🤦🏻‍♀️

You can challenge them. My dc were reading paperbacks fluently in reception. Pushing phonics didn’t cause that to happen, me reading to them and letting them expand sideways with the play they needed which is cut short in year 1 did. There is zero need for pushing of phonics in reception.

We were talking about primary level. There's also plenty of non excellent comps in Essex also

Would add my children are ND too. Interesting it’s the parents of NTs without SEND that want all the pushing and extra attention and seem to think their kids are more worthy than anybody else’s .

Of course they do. And I would say that a high achieving child has definitely got an education.

The problem is one-sized government policy on expectations, and insufficient funding and provision across the education system. Plus slow bureaucratic, time-wasting systems such as EHCPs and lengthy NHS waiting lists that means that it takes years to correctly target and support difficulties.

NT vs ND is not the problem.
Additional needs are far more broad than that anyway.

The problem is there are many children who for many reasons don't cope with "inclusive" mainstream classrooms and there is a lack of provision to meet their needs. There needs to be more alternative provisions and better access to them. It shouldn't be a political failure for a school to not be able to meet the needs of high-needs children on inadequate budgets. There also needs to be better curriculum provision to meet the range of needs of young people.

Many ND children are an absolute asset to their schools and are joys to know and teach.

What we should not have is a system going back to segregating by "labels" but we do need more alternative places to those who need more specialist support and alternative curriculums.

I have two DCs, who went to the local comprehensive. Both got all As and A*s in their GCSEs, and AAB at A level to get into the RG university course of their choice. They both got firsts. DS didn’t want to go to Oxbridge and I don’t think DD2 could have coped with the pressure.

Apart from the fact, they could both have got AAA at A level, I don’t know how they could have shone any brighter? DS is earning 6 figures in a profession, where nobody cares about your A level or degree results - all anyone cares about is that DS passed the professional exams.

However, especially with DD2, I got sick of the pushing by teachers, who never cared about DD2’s well being, except one. All I heard from teachers from Year 10 onwards, which was in fact directed at DD2

”All you have to do to get an A/A* is….”

Even when I asked them to leave DD2 alone, because as a high achieving perfectionist girl, she put enough pressure on herself, and she certainly didn’t need any more - with an early history of an eating disorder already. Did they take any notice - no, they didn’t. As a ND girl, who had no support from the school, she was burnt out by the end of secondary education.

I simply don’t recognise what OP is talking about, in the comprehensives round here, nor our own secondary education at grammar schools in the 70s. Boys got the cane at my school, so disruption never lasted long in classrooms.

Well done on your kids achievements! You must be proud 😊.

However, your kids are grown. The situation isn’t the same nowadays. Schools aren’t providing in the same way. Neither my husband and I had tutoring and we both ended up at a top uni as well. He went to a grammar school and I to an international school and both ended up in 6 figure jobs as well. Things are different now. My (now) 13 year old was bored out of his mind during primary age and so was my middle child (now 11). They weren’t pushed at all. During maths he used to finish his work and help others. He went from loving going to school to hating it saying the only thing he enjoyed is PE and lunch. My girl was a bit happier to coast along but she was also a bit bored especially English.

I think for us a family it wasn’t the “shining brighter” that we wanted it was the fact that they went from loving school to dreading it and telling us how bored they were. It wasn’t a nice experience - including the fact that one year my son went up to the teacher saying he’s done he’s work and she snapped back at him said yes I know you’ve done it just sit quietly. I know it’s not a big deal her snapping at him but it’s one of those things that stayed with him and he never said anything else for the rest of the year and he still remembers it. Teachers are overwhelmed and so are TAs but the reality is that the education at the moment at primary level in my area at least isn’t really serving anyone. This is my experience.

I think this is only partly true.

Part of what allows this situation to go on is that schools are legally bound when it comes to kids who have a barrier or struggle. If they don't accomodate Johnny and adapt the program to his needs, they can be held accountable. To the point that it's true even if he is affecting other kids ability to be educated because he is disruptive.

I'm not saying they always are successful in meeting those needs, btw, but there is an obligation which schools have in a way they don't for average, or gifted, students.

Because there is no similar obligation to other kids, there is no real lever for parents to use, or anyone to use, to argue for more funding, or that Jane who is massively gifted in maths, or John in music, need any kinds of supports in terms of their education.

Those things, those kids, can be completely sacrificed in order to meet the needs of the students who do have legal and policy protections - even students who never have any chance of meeting minimal educational outcomes to carry on with training or further education.

Why would there be funding for things where there is no statutory obligation to provide them?

I work with children who have EHCPs. The curriculum isn’t adapted to a child’s needs but they have support either through interventions at different times or in lessons. Adapted work is given to them which is separate to what the majority have. Teaching is very much geared to the majority and above.In all my years of doing it I think I’ve only worked with one disruptive child who has an EHCP. Most of the disruptive children I have come across don’t have EHCPs or even SEND. Schools are very good at handling them and giving provision out of class.

And schools are providing even better. Numbers of state pupils at Oxbridge and Russell group unis have risen. I have family offered places for Oxbridge this year and friends whose kids are at Oxbridge from comps. SEND aside getting into a Russel group uni or getting top grades isn’t hard if you’re bright, work hard and are capable of being resilient and independent.

I’m starting to think some parents are bitter because their kids didn’t have the capability to reach aspirations they had for them.

Your children don’t speak for everybody in your area and I’d be surprised if the primary curriculum( which is dry) doesn’t stretch your children. The expectations and content are very high. Maybe look at some of the year 6 SATS papers.

The teachers have told us outright that they struggle to challenge our primary school child academically. And this child isn't what I consider gifted. Intelligent, yes, but not exceptional.

To the broader conversation, I have never considered this to be about SEND. It's the result of any type of mainstream education with large class sizes. They can't create a bespoke curriculum for individual children. With limited resources, it's right that they focus on bringing everyone to a certain standard where possible. We challenge our own child at home where we can, but we also have limited time and resources.

How can schools be held accountable by parents of children, who have SEN, but no EHC plan and in reality get no SEN support?

Parents can a formal complaint to the governors, for not using their best endeavours; and the governors can effectively ignore them. Then what can parents do really? Complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman take a long time, and the remedies go nowhere to make up for the child’s loss of education for years.

A claim of disability discrimination to the SEND tribunal achieves nothing. Apparently hearing dates now are being given for the end of next year. It’s very stressful for the parents and even if they win, at best, they’ll get an apology from the school; but the relationship with the school will have been destroyed. The parents will have to find a new school, with no guarantee, it will be any better.

This is why parents apply for EHC plan needs assessments; but LAs’ default position is to refuse the first time. Parents have to appeal to the SEN tribunal, which as above will take 18 months. Assuming the parents win, the EHC plan won’t be worth the paper it’s written on, when it’s issued. The parents will have to appeal to the tribunal again over the needs and provisions, or rather the lack of them in the EHC plan - which will take the parents another 18 months, stress and money on independent professional reports.

LAs flout SEN law every day on a massive scale, and the government does nothing to police them, because it comes down to lack of funding by the government. It’s left to individual parents to police them. Few parents (probably less than 10%) have the wherewithal, the stamina and money to fight for three years to get their children with SEN what they need in school - which is what LAs rely on to save money! Meanwhile, the children are left to struggle for another three years in school, on top of what has already been wasted, until the parents realise their child is having difficulty.

So the idea, children with SEN have legal rights and accountability in schools, which gives them an advantage over gifted and talented children is an empty promise at best, probably for 90% of them. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes!

What an unpleasant view. Diversity and inclusion should be promoted in practice - not just as buzzwords - across the board, not just in education.

If in a class of 30 there is any child that needs more than say 20% of a teachers time they shouldn’t be there. It’s unfair on the other children.

But an NT child (and btw many ND pupils are also academically gifted) can already be included in education without adaptations.

An inclusion policy is about how to include those with diverse needs.

I think you’re asking about gifted and talented policies which are different - and yes those who are academically above average should be pushed to achieve their best. But that could also include a pupil who has SEND too - my ds was a gifted scientist and programmer in a wheelchair. He needed the environment adapted and also access to higher level teaching.

My ND niece hasn’t sat an exam in any subject and got less than 90%. All she asks for is a calm classroom. When you include violent and disruptive children you exclude the likes of her (and the rest of the class) from learning. Why? Why do it? What is the point in harming every learners progress just do you can boast smug platitudes about how ‘inclusive’ (group hug!) you are. It’s farcical.

The upshot is that you can’t rely on the state. You just can’t. Your child is your responsibility and you need to do whatever you can to help them achieve their potential - by providing support yourself or sourcing it in other ways. That’s the only way people succeed or reach potential- by taking it into their own hands.

You could say that about all abilities. The reality is it’s TAs doing interventions not teachers.

I didn’t mention abilities at all though did I? Any child for whatever reason takes up too much of a teachers time then they’re in the wrong place.

And mine.
Sutton Trust and UCL research tells us that there is very little ( half a grade at most) difference in A level grades achieved by state Comprehensive schools' students and private/grammars' students of similar ability.

In fact comprehensive schools not only do much better for children of lower ability than Secondary Moderns they also produce students who do better than private at University and at post graduate level.

Of course private schools do not have to meet the qualification levels for teachers that state schools have eg qualified teacher status. Indeed many teachers have been leaving private schools as the latter have been exiting the Teachers' Pensions scheme ( to save money).

But if your child is struggling, I'd suggest they're not at the top end of the academic spectrum/range. Unfortunately there are parents who can't accept that their children aren't that academically bright, even though they probably excel in other areas, and want to blame the school, the teachers, other children etc.

When you work in a school all you hear is SEN, SEN, SEN. It's pretty much all that matters and takes up 80 odd percent of time and resources for 20 something percent of the children. It's nuts and I think explains why so many parents want their children classed as SEN. It's the only way for their child to be seen.

I think you've missed my point. I did say that I was not saying the situation was working particularly for kids with SEND.

I am saying schools feel a kind of obligation to at least attempt to address those issues - even if in practice it's totally ineffective - in a way they simply don't for other kids.

You can see it in the way you have kids in classes being negatively impacted by a child who is disruptive, even causing evacuation of the classroom multiple times a day. How is it acceptable that those kids are losing out on their education? Because the school has to provide a place for the disruptive child more than they have to provide a safe space, much less an education for all the others.

And it's been said straight out by multiple people on this thread alone that gifted children should get no consideration in school, there is no obligation to meet their educational needs. Parents are explicitly being told they should pay for private school (plus VAT) for those children.

It may not be working well for anyone but there has been a hierarchy created rather than saying the educational needs of all children need to be met.