Email from my child’s infant school uk? I’m sorry but this all seems wrong?

[Frazzledmomma123]

Dear Families,

I wanted to address a concern that has understandably been raised regarding the use of a ‘safe word’ to move children out of the classroom. On reflection, we recognise that terms such as safe word and evacuation can raise anxiety and concern.

We agree that children should not have to leave their own classroom in order to feel safe. However, there are times, though not daily, when moving the class is the safest option for all children. This has happened a few times, and only when absolutely necessary. We fully accept having to go to such measures is a worry, but it is a system that schools are having to turn to more and more. I appreciate this provides little comfort, but hopefully helps you hear that supporting emotional regulation has become a real focus and factor for schools nationally.

The children themselves were involved in choosing the word, and the purpose was to minimise panic and keep the situation calm if it needed to be used. Our aim is always for every child to feel safe, happy, and able to learn in their classroom, as is their right. We are putting a range of steps and strategies in place to work towards this, and we do not intend this approach to become the “go‑to.”

We also want to reassure you that we are supporting children to understand that behaviour is a communication of feelings, but the way those feelings are shown must still be safe and appropriate. We do not condone unsafe behaviour, and we share parents’ concerns about children seeing this as “normal.” I have spoken with the class to reiterate that message and reminded them that they should always talk to a trusted adult if they feel unsure or worried. In school, children choose five trusted adults; it may be helpful to have a similar conversation at home about who your child feels they can talk to at school.

We are very aware that things are challenging at the moment. We do not want this to continue, and we are actively putting support in place to help all children feel safe and settled in their learning environment.

Thank you for reading, please keep speaking to us about your concerns.

Those adults are teachers, why should they risk being hurt?

Yes I worked for many years in mainstream. And now have worked for the best part of a decade in PRUs or alternative provisions. I agree, it is difficult for mainstream schools to recreate the PRU environment and nor should they have to. However, in the OP’s case, and many others in reply, I do think that in primary schools there is a strong case for implementing some things which we know work. Including some physical management and restrictions on how far children can freely roam around a building.

I think you've misunderstood. I'm saying that the current system of legally enforceable EHCPs is unaffordable for the nation. A child that might need 1:1 in a class of 30 kids might make do sharing a helper with other children in a class of 12 at a special school with an appropriate curriculum.

One of the reasons LEAs can't afford special schools is because they're forced to spend so much on EHCPs.

If we're honest, those kids that need crazy staffing levels of 3:1 or 4:1 due to violence are probably beyond educating in the traditional sense (I'm specifically talking about them and not children that require those staffing/nursing levels for health conditions, such as seizures, etc).

The country is skint. Taxes are the highest in 80 years. Something has to give and cuts are needed everywhere. That's just reality.

I think the first step is to take away the legally enforceable aspect to EHCPs, but instead place a legally enforceable onus upon LEAs to provide 20% SEN school places with minimum staffing levels and maximum class sizes + more secure places for the violent children. See how that works out for the majority of SEN kids and then adjust as necessary.

I want to like this a hundred times!
I work with offenders. Many with ASD and LD did not have access to screens growing up because it wasn’t around.

Op, I get what you are saying. You want your child to be safe. Many of the parents of the children who are being violent in the classroom also wish that theirs weren’t in this situation.

@AnneLovesGilbert gosh I’m shocked to read your response. It’s completely unacceptable for one child to disrupt an entire class regularly AND there is no place for violence in a classroom. I’m sorry this is happening. I would have to consider moving schools tbh if this happened.

They are not ‘violent kids’ requiring ‘crazy staffing ratios’
These are children with a wide range of needs that are not being met and thus they are displaying violent behaviours. These are children who can and should be educated just like any other child.
if you take anything from this please remember ‘there is always a reason for behaviour.’

Don’t be ridiculous. You are talking about high staff ratio PRU’s, and highly specialist restraint training.

This thread is about mainstream schools, mostly understaffed, 30 children plus to a class. With an ever diminishing quantity of teachers who just want to teach, not be bouncers.

And should you find this mythical teacher, willing to hoick violent children out of a phonics lesson, who is going to oversee the other 29, and where is the child to be put? Someone else’s class? The kitchen?

thank you. My mum said she thought when my little one is on her screens her behaviour changes and typically all news, social media etc directs you via algorithms so you end up with only information saying that they have a negative impact but looking at posters comments that isn’t a universal experience and probably more to do with the latest social media fad of influencers doing “screen detox” and the algorithms pushing you to that.

It may be unacceptable, and it displeases everyone, but the current direction of travel is towards more of this happening and fewer alternatives being available.

Clucking disapprovingly is all very well, but we all need to respond to the White Paper.

Then I hope we can count on you to respond to the white paper consultation.

Think it's bad now? If these proposals pass, even the most well informed parents won't have any legal way to get a specialist school directed to take this child through a tribunal (those particular tribunal powers will no longer exist). This child may well go to your kid's mainstream secondary because there will be a drive to 'include' children with these needs in mainstream. There might not even be any SEMH special schools locally in any event because all the independent special schools will be restricted out of business and the inclusion agenda won't be building new state ones. This child won't be able to go to alternative provision for more than 12 weeks, so the days where the pressure is relieved a tiny bit by these kids going to afternoon farm provisions (or similar) longer term will be over. The absolute best you can hope for is that they get put in a resource base, except there will be 20 spaces or something for the average secondary comp and then that kid is put in with all the academic, non violent autistic kids who experience too much noise as intolerable pain.

That is definitely a fair point.

The parents may not be in a position financially to stay at home and care for their SN child 24/7. Carer's allowance is only around £85pw and the other parent's earnings could well prevent the family from getting any means tested benefits on top of that.

And caring for anyone 24/7 is very challenging, but single-handedly caring for an SN child who is inclined to get violent and destructive is rarely sustainable imo.

A friend's 13YO son had a meltdown that put her in hospital; she had concussion and broken ribs. While she was recovering, his father, who was significantly disabled (RA), took time off work to care for him and he attacked him, too. The boy ended up in a residential placement that was costing several thousands a week because he had to have 2:1 care 24/7. (Both parents died relatively young, in their 50s, and I often wonder if the stress of caring for the boy was a factor in that.)

No misunderstanding. I understood your post perfectly. I stand by what I said. Views like your posts are part of the problem. Removing legal protections will not improve the situation for anyone.

Not meeting needs now costs more in the long run.

Those DC who need 3:1 or 4:1 still need an education. No, it isn’t always (though it sometimes is) what a traditional education looks like, but it is still education. Many fail to understand the scope of education when considering SEP. Limiting their education will lead to more costs in the longer term. It will also lead to additional costs to the state elsewhere. For example, if you limit their education spending, you will increase NHS spending and social care spending.

And that’s without even looking at the rest of your suggestion.

If a child is so unable to regulate their emotions/actions that the classroom has to be evacuated for safety reasons then that child should not be in a mainstream provision - other arrangements need to be made. It is not the job of little children to accommodate the needs of unstable SEND children, at the expense of their own emotional wellbeing and right to a stable education. This is no good for anyone.

These are children with a wide range of needs that are not being met and thus they are displaying violent behaviours.

If that were true then they wouldn't need any extra staffing if their needs were met, would they? So why does their EHCP give them a legally enforceable 3:1 or 4:1 staffing ratio? Do you really think that there's some magic formula that will stop them being violent?

This, the school in our situation very much minimised it as a “isolated incident “ “clash of personalities “ … “unfortunate accident “ “one off” it was only at a full class party when parents were randomly chatting and realised several of our dc had injuries… all school related.. all by one child.

school absolutely more focused on telling our dc to -be kind/you should have moved away/what should you have done differently/did you upset x?

Children unable to regulate in mainstream schools to the point that the class has to be evacuated need a different provision. That much is clear.

There is more to SEN, including those who display behaviours that challenge, than ND conditions.

So we can count on you to respond to the white paper consultation? Anyone can respond. If you feel this way you definitely should.

We need everyone (even those of us who disagree on the why, or the how) to stand up and say we need more special schools, not this failed, bastardised version of 'inclusion' in mainstreams.

They often don’t need extra staffing once their needs are met.

Of course I will respond. It’s appalling what is happening.

Exactly. No one has to wind up the ND child just because it's funny, and if they then accidentally hurt the person who wound them up, that's natural consequences.

Any child who has 3:1 or 4:1 at all times is absolutely exceptional, there are only a handful of them in each local authority area. It is almost an entirely different conversation when you get to that level of need, including discussing residential and mental health inpatient beds.

The most high needs children I've ever personally met or worked with, with some seriously challenging behaviour required 2:1 all times with that scaled up in moments of crisis only.

I don't think so.

Too much screen time is simply bad for children, or anyone really. It drags down the behaviour of children who otherwise would not behave that badly, often it goes hand in hand with a laissez faire attitude to disciplining, and lazy parenting where parents are glued o their own screen and don't meaningfully and sufficiently interact with their poor offspring.

I haven’t said otherwise. That is what many parents whose DC have SEN want. But, that different provision has to actually meet needs.