To think letting a 7yr old sit next to an Emergency Exit on a coach is wrong?

[Sixer]

Especially after he opened the Exit, thinking it was a window, therefore setting off the alarms on the coach, being sent to the Head, then kept off lunch play time as a punishment. Surely this seat should be reserved for an adult?

Btw, you might have have had a more sensible ID here, but I am just daft old me

Sleep well.

I would expect an NT 7yo not to open a window on a coach without teacher's permission (even more so if the coach was moving). Would generally speaking expect a child this age (and NT) not to fiddle with things when out on a strange vehicle. So think the SEN information was actually relevant and should have gone in first post.

The plane thing is about physical ability though, obviously even a 7 year old can open an emergency exit on a coach!

I think if his SEN preclude the understanding that it was an emergency exit then YANBU. Although really, unless it was obviously malicious I don't see the need for punishment at all, surely the results would've been disturbing and shocking enough for him to have "learnt his lesson". Did they just decide he was lying then??

And I do think these days emergency exits should be explained as so many people use cars. My ds has known what an emergency exit was from the time he was old enough to have it explained as we travel by bus, but if we didn't I can't really imagine the issue coming up.

I think a lot depends on the seven year old. Most NT children would cope with this, although the expression "some mothers do 'ave them" comes to mind. I think a child who is dyslexic still deserves to be punished, but it would be unfair to punish a child with a low IQ.

If the child has moderate or severe SEN (Ie. intellectual disablity as opposed to being dyslexic) then risk assessment is needed at that should include sitting them in a safe part of coach where they can be watched.

YANBU to object to a child being punished for a genuine mistake, but YABU to suggest that only adults should sit near the emergency exit. Most 7 year olds can tell the difference between a door and window. I'd be more worried that he was being punished for something he did accidentally (assuming you are not getting just his edited version of events.)

YANBU, a telling off would have been enough. If he'd done it to be naughty then a punishment would have been fine, but when he explained why'd he'd opened it (and I assume said sorry) then I don't think there'd be a need for a punishment.

Sorry , I just thought it was pertinent to the incident.

I think in general most 7 yr olds would not open the door or try to ~ but the odd one would and there should have been a warning before hand and observation re behaviour.

If he is known to be at all immature behaviour wise the teacher should not have sat him there in case of an accident.

Our primary school would not have let any child sit next to the emergency exit.i think they are punishing your DS for their own incompetence. i would ask to see their risk assessment !

I don't think the school is incompetent. It is unreasonable to blame the school for everything. Very few NT seven year olds are quite THAT stupid.

Even naughty boys usually know the different between a door and a window and do not have a death wish.

Generally children with significant special needs will have their own individual risk assessment.

I think it's a bit silly to sit one of the kids next to the emergency exit on a school coach - most should know better but why take the risk? And if he has SN it doesn't seem very sensible. Was he sat there on his own?

I think you should ask the school what the punishment was for and check that what he's told you is right. If what he is being punished for is what you were told it seems a bit hard, but if there's more to it, is he not telling you the full story or has he understood what he did wrong?

tbh I think it depends on what kind of SEN. The statement that "he is (is?) sen" should not absolve a child of wrongdoing purely on the basis that that child has a disability. Because SEN covers a wide area - and SEN does not necessarily always imply learning difficulties or lack of understanding of what is right and wrong.

I think we need to be careful not to lump all children with "SEN" into this category where the mere mention of the word should have others saying that "oh no, of course, he has a disability, therefore he cannot possibly be held responsible for his actions." because lots of people with diisabilities are perfectly capable of being responsible for their actions.

So op - if your ds has learning difficulties then no yanbu to think that your ds in particular shouldn't have been allowed to sit near the emergency exit, but if his SEN is something different then I think that yabu, and that at seven he should know the difference between a window and a door.

It is an unnecessary risk and therefore should be avoided. Simple as that