4 children with statements in ds' reception class - help!

[ALittleBitConfused]

DS is due to start reception in Sept. The choice we have for our first choice will have 3 siblings with SEN. One with profound difficulties, one with ASD and one with behavioural probelms. All have statements with 1:1 written in them I believe.

My friend has a ds with ASD and has put down this school, so there will be 4 children with SEN in the class.

Is this likely to impact on the education of my ds if he gets in? It's an overscribed school.

Do you understand now Lulu?

Statemented means their needs are acknowledged and should be being catered for.

You're far more likely to run into difficulties with a child who does have SN but does not have a statement.

That way lies madness.

You can give it a try and if it proves to be a dreadful school then go somewhere else. But fwiw it wouldn't put me off.

Statements are a good thing.

Omic you sound like a fab teacher. Do you think it is likely that the HT will therefore always appoint fab teachers to that class of 4 statements each year?

Badbagel, do you now understand why I am worried?

Sorry, just seen your 6:15 post...no, definitely look elsewhere.

If the HT is that clueless about SN and provision then FGS give her a swerve.

She sounds useless.

thanks tomhardy. I suppose it might fall under the discriminatory act, but even so, I suppose I have to consider whether even if she is wrong, it is the right school.

How close / good a friend is this woman?

Because it sounds to me as if she is doing her best (in a rather uninformed, ignorant way) to put YOU off applying and increasing competition for places,
OR that she has the whole story round her neck, and the HT simply explained that because there were a high nuber of siblings applying, AND children who would be prioritised for places beause they have statements, the other vacancies are few.

I can't imagine a HT using SEN children to out parents off, or giving any details whatsoever of those children. They might as well just sign thier own P60 and pack their bags, for the professiona risk that would put them at!

DS is on 'school action plus'. He has a mobility condition that affects nothing else about him. And how anyone could think that the lovely, friendly, kind and gentle child of a MN-er who has Down's Syndrome (and a staement), for example, could disrupt another child's education more than the badly brought up thug of a child who can occur in ANY class, and won't be known about inn advance, or come with additional resources is silly and pretty offensive, really.

I think a lot of you are being really naive.

The HT is allowed to appeal against a kid with a statement if it will effect everyone else. She has accepted 3 kids with a statement in 1 class - so she is not anti inclusion. She just genuinely thinks a 4th kid will be the straw that broke the camels back.

My DS with ASD can't be the only Aspie who can't tolerate other kids with ASD or behavioural issues. If my DS is in a class with another kid with ASD I can guarantee he will disrupt the class.

Just because a kid has 1:1 will not stop them having melt downs, being noisy, hurting others, taking off their nappy...... It just means it will happen lessoften then if they didn't have 1:1.

3 kids with severe needs,at least 2 of which are behavioural, sounds like a bloody hard class to me.

My friend says that schools have to provide the first 15 hours of funding as our county have a high delegation of their budget to schools.

(but surely they delegate on the basis of no. of children with SN?)

Sorry,I missed the post about the letter fo the LA. But that letter would say 'no available places because this many places went to siblings, this many to looked after children, this many to statemented childre, this many to those living closest to the school'.
Has the HT said in writing that the children with statements would affect the education of another child?

Oh, look, ignore me - I also missed the fact that your friend's child has ASD.

ALBC that explains it a lot more, thanks.

I would also be more worried about the HT attitude than the 4 kids.
What does your friend think?

Blu, I read the letter from the LA myself. I have seen the HTs concerns in writing. My friend just told me that she was trying to get hold of the SENCO at that school for a few days to discuss it and eventually the HT rang her back.

Well I think my friend is going to send him anyway tbh. She still thinks it is the best place for him.

I suppose I was just wondering if it was true that it would then disrupt everyone elses education.

Surely it would be impossible to know in advance though whether one child with ASD would react badly to another? My 8yr-old, for example, seems to be drawn to other children with ASD or who have ASD traits.

And my 10yr-old has certainly had far greater issues with some of the NT children in his class than any with SN.

No, the HT has said in writing that she can't meet the needs of my friends ds because of the needs of the other 3 statemented children in the class therefore they do not want to accept him.

It was on the phone that she said the non-statemented children's education will be affected.

Blu, there are currently enough spaces as they haven't been allocated for reception and won't be until March. Siblings without statements or those that live next to the school don't beat statemented children anyway I don't think.

Does anyone still not believe me? Need further explanation?

I can assure you that what I am saying is the truth.

Is anyone else thinking that HT doesn't want the 4th child in there because they might well be a lower achiever who could contribute to low KS2 SAT results?

Sad, but true.

If it were me I would probably plan to send my DC there anyway. For all the reasons why you liked it in the first place.

your ds might have sen? have you thought of that? :S

southeastastra, how will that make any difference to my question/concerns?

Don't be so judgemental.

ragged, that's very interesting. This school have had consistent nineties for the SATS.

Could that be it after all?

As a mother of a child with SN who is about to start his transition to MS school I find the answers on this thread very refreshing.

It will have crossed HT's mind, Confused :(.

SEN provision is always underfunded.
Children whose needs aren't met are more likely to be disruptive.
Ergo, defacto, kids with SN/SEN are more likely to be disruptive.
That's not how it should be, but it's still the reality.
So HT has a point in worrying about the impact on non-SN pupils, from having a lot of pupils already statemented before they even start reception.

I expect to get flamed for saying that, thought I may stop a few of you from hitting the ROAST button by mentioning I have a son on the SEN register (though not statemented).

Or is having 12% with statements who are at risk of being low achieving either because of their SN or their lack of support for the SN might also bring down the SATS even if they don't affect their peers?

Could that be a reason too?

Exactly - some heads take the opinion that league tables matter more than inclusion.