Child misbehaviour in reception - excluded and reduced timetable by wk 2. Too strict or proportionate measures?

[virgomama95]

I was a little worried about how my son would settle in school. They seemed to be doing okay and happy, but I endeavoured to check by day 3. Teacher said child was a joy but struggled to listen sometimes, yet today had been much better and had been showered in stickers for doing so. I wish I had savoured that feedback because what followed was absolute turmoil for us.

Day 4, we were pulled in for a quick after school chat and the teacher told us that our child had pinched another child. Unacceptable of course and we spoke to our child about keeping your hands to yourself. However, day 5, I receive a call from the school about our child's behaviour again - and issues such as not listening, flippant responses and hurting other children (and teachers - in an overwhelmed panic) were brought up. They even used the word 'exclusion' in a sentence about how they were not thinking about it at this point, yet I hadn't brought it up, so the 'reassurance' had more of the opposite effect. They called every day after day 5 - our child's behaviour was escalating. Our child was strong willed and sometimes difficult in nursery but these incidents were far and few in between and nothing on this scale. Our child had plenty of friends in nursery but the teachers said in a meeting (Wed, week 2) that the other children were giving him a 'wide birth', I felt destroyed. My child was suffering, he had gotten into such a state (thurs, week 2) that they were restrained and I had to pick them up (less than 2 hours after their arrival). Our child was excluded on Thursday and was given the weekend to recover. Our child is now on 1 hour a week in a 1-1 situation which is supposed to be for bonding and trust, yet this teacher is actually the only one available for that week and usually works with year 2.

My question is, is this proportionate or is this just too early? I feel like an extra support teacher, monitoring during playtime etc. could have happened before this. How is this beneficial for our child's development, classroom integration, social boundaries etc? I'm stuck between defending ourselves and wanting to cooperate, so I haven't questioned the schools methods as of yet.

@prh47bridge

Teachers and classmates have a right not to be subjected to violence, no matter what the cause. That has to be the priority at the moment.

They do and no-one is saying otherwise. But there is a right way to deal with this and a wrong way. Resorting to illegal exclusions is the wrong way. Going to even a fixed term exclusion without exploring other routes is wrong and potentially a breach of the Equality Act.

The OP is not arguing that her child is perfect. She is clear that there are issues that need to be dealt with. That does not mean we should blindly support the school when it is acting in this way. If the school was dealing with this appropriately it would have my full support. It isn't.

But some of us think it is being dealt with appropriately. You don't. Fair enough, but it doesn't mean you are right.

Let's see if it works. It's better than a permanent exclusion and could work. Forcing the school to a full time time table when they don't have the support staff to deal with the DC's behaviour could lead to a permanent exclusion.

I think without knowing the exact nature of the incidents it is incredibly difficult to be critical of the school at this stage.

All schools will have children who have tricky behaviours - hitting their peers, not sitting in their seat, shouting out, not wanting to share etc. Teachers and schools manage this every day. For a child to be sent home and excluded for one day, there will have to be significant concerns about their safety and well-being and about the safety and well-being of the other pupils in the class.

I suspect that the one day at home was to give everyone a breather, including the OP’s son, who is clearly showing distressed behaviours, and for school to try and come up with a plan.

Their plan is 1 hour per day 1-1. This suggests that School feel the child needs a significant amount of support while in school. A clear plan will be needed in order to increase this time and to get them back into the classroom. Something hasn’t been working so far, and it’s important to try and work out what that is and plan from there.

Whether it is legal or not - well does that really matter at this stage? I’m sure the school could make a strong argument that the OP’s son was distressed.

You’ve also got to view this in the context of the a reception class - very small children, some of whom are away from their parents for a full day for the first time, settling into a new environment, meeting new people. School have had to react quickly to minimise the impact on the other children. And while they may not have got it 100% right, I can understand their decision making

I think sometimes people concentrate on the rules but forget to look at the child. So the school shouldn’t exclude, so is it better to have a distressed child (who has to be restrained) in school full-time or to bring the child in gradually, work out the triggers and form a plan with the parent (and other agencies if necessary)? Obviously if the school is not then working on the plan that is wrong.

But some of us think it is being dealt with appropriately. You don't. Fair enough, but it doesn't mean you are right

Fortunately @DancesWithTortoises this isn't a matter of opinion, there are actual laws around this which @prh47bridge is pointing out.

And if those laws make a child more distressed?

@GreatestHits

But some of us think it is being dealt with appropriately. You don't. Fair enough, but it doesn't mean you are right

Fortunately @DancesWithTortoises this isn't a matter of opinion, there are actual laws around this which @prh47bridge is pointing out.

Sometimes the child is more important than the law.

As I said this is better than a permanent exclusion but you seem to think it's ok to run that risk.

Waving the law about will achieve nothing except the smug satisfaction of forcing the school to do something detrimental to this child, the other children and the staff.

Not a sensible route to take.

It is the only sensible route to take. Without the law this child will have no right to an education because negligent schools can getting away with denying him one for as long as possible.

Sometimes the child is more important than the law

The point of the law is that the best interests of the child are front and centre. So no, the child is not more important than the law. The law reflects the child's importance.

Waving the law about will achieve nothing except the smug satisfaction of forcing the school to do something detrimental to this child, the other children and the staff.

Completely wrong. Waving the law about will force the school to do something that is in the best interests of this child and the other children instead of what they are currently doing, which is taking the easy path regardless of the detrimental effect on the child. As many schools have demonstrated, it is possible to manage this kind of situation and worse without detrimental effects on other children and staff whilst staying within the law and keeping the best interests of the challenging child front and centre.

So if being in school full-time caused huge distress to this child, is that really the right thing for them?

You haven't said but surely as part of this the school is helping you to get him assessed etc because this level of behaviour is not normal. It concerns me slightly that you seem to think that talking to him with a calm voice is all that's needed as I'd say your child needs more intervention not just to make things better for other students, but importantly, to help him to cope better as he clearly doesn't have mechanisms.

At nursery, if he wanted to be left alone or particular about things, it is likely that ws fine, albeit noticed. But at school, expectations are different and if he can't manage those then he needs help to get to the point where he can.

@toomuchlaundry

So if being in school full-time caused huge distress to this child, is that really the right thing for them?

I don't know but the school does not appear to have taken any of the steps it should have to try and manage his distress before resorting to an exclusion. Deciding that school is not the right thing for the child without first trying to manage their distress is giving up on them and is definitely not the right thing for the child. The best possible outcome for the child is that their distress is managed appropriately so that they can integrate into the school community. Alternatives should only be considered if this is not possible.

It isn't clear when the OP's child turned 5 but, if it was after 1st September, she can keep him out of school or send him part time until January, but that is her choice, not the school's. After that, he must either be in school full time, or she must home educate. She can choose which.

If she keeps him in school and his behaviour continues, the school may need to permanently exclude him. But that is a last resort when all other attempts to manage his behaviour have failed.

Just to be completely clear, I am not saying that the OP's child should never be excluded. That may be the right solution. But there is a process to go through before getting there to make sure it is the right solution. That process is there to protect the child's best interests. The school should not take shortcuts.

@GreatestHits

It is the only sensible route to take. Without the law this child will have no right to an education because negligent schools can getting away with denying him one for as long as possible.

But you don't know that's what is going to happen. Talk about catostophising. Very early days. I've seen a reset work many, many times. Give the school chance to do what they think is best for everybody.

The point of the law is that the best interests of the child are front and centre. So no, the child is not more important than the law. The law reflects the child's importance.

That's a very naive point of view.

Waving the law about will force the school to do something that is in the best interests of this child and the other children instead of what they are currently doing, which is taking the easy path regardless of the detrimental effect on the child.

But you don't know it is detrimental, do you? It may be the right thing. As I've said, I've seen it work before. The child front and centre, as you say. But the law isn't always what's best for the child.

I would say give it a week or so to see how he settles. No child should be forced into school while in a state of crippling distress. No matter what the law says.

But you don't know that's what is going to happen. Talk about catostophising. Very early days. I've seen a reset work many, many times. Give the school chance to do what they think is best for everybody.

I've seen this kind of situation too often. The school is clearly not thinking about what is best for everybody. If they were, they wouldn't have gone down this route as they clearly have not taken the time to properly consider what is best for the OP's child. They are doing what is easiest for them. If there was no alternative and the law was unworkable they would have my support but I know from the many schools I've been involved with that there are alternatives and the law is workable. On the information the OP has posted, what this school is doing is a long way from best practice.

I completely disagree with prh47 (sadly).
I have been in a similar situation to op and the worst thing would have been to assert myself over dc being temporarily excluded.
Because arguing with school would have show them that i was taking my dc side and not wanting the dc punished.
Also gave dc time to cool off.
But i do feel that in our situation the school were alway unable to say what happened exactly or beforehand. (So clearly after even one incident dc was not being supervised. )As pp said you need that info to work out cause or put anything in place.
My dc was ok or so for the first settling in week then struggled then was ok then a boy joined school and he enjoyed winding dc up verbally. So deteriorated again.
Dc was definitely impulsive. And i had told them that before dc started.
Ideally i wanted some closer supervision of dc but instead they tried to blame me and seemed to think i could influence from home (impossible as dc was strictly told off each time, put on behaviour charts at home). Luckily dc outgrew it mostly - still very difficult and likely pda/adhd.
Basically the reception and maybe the school just not very great with difficult or SEN dc, they cant tell the difference. And another friend with dc there have also been up and down with whether he has SEN. They are very slightly better as he more fits an asd pattern ( but didnt get a diagnosis when looked into).
I know what other pp mean about no excuses and there arent but there may be reasons.
Eg lack of supervision in free play times. Which means some kids are hogging toys or snatching them or verbally teasing/winding up.
(Certainly in school ive witnessed a lot of name calling/yourenot invited to my party etc) and yes they are young but it really isnt helpful behaviourwise for there to be not punishment for that as bullies just move onto verbal abuse.
We did have a few issues at nursery but nowhere near what school was like. I think the increase in hour so quickly. The number of kids.
Anyway dc is still difficult (i dont think school realise how difficult y4 now).
Op i would consider whether you may need to change schools as i would say parents are not very forgiving. Although that maybe better waiting until you get some improvement in behaviour. Laws will be written by gov/lawyers etc to save money too. It's not like they are providing money for this support.
However i also think your dc is likely to be calmer with a teacher 1-2-1 for an hour so it's not going to help identify Issues.
Also if your school had been clearer about where the behaviour could lead you might have looked at say part time earlier on or alternate days. Or a behaviour chart.
I do think having a ta keeping an eye on a kid would help so they can step in when it's obvious 2 kids are disagreeing.

What sort of hours was he doing in nursery?
Does he ever bang his head on purpose at home during tantrums.

I think you need to see a gp to ask for a referral.
And bear in mind that many of the kids at school might be behaving impeccably at school but be awful at home (and violent too). It's just that they have more control/understanding that it's not acceptable at school.
Triggers: It was worse when dc didnt sleep well (illness/parties/xmas/visiting relatives) so we had to stop doing some things and severely limit stuff.
Also worth considering that if school dif think it's just naughty behaviour you as parent will be blamed and the child may be more severely punished there for relatively minor stuff ( and other kids become aware and wind them up to get them in trouble)
If you think when they go to nursery it can take ages for kids to settle some cry and some cry going into school. Others probably get just as stressed but arent sat there crying.
All the reception free play is probably not great for some kids.

@DancesWithTortoises

The point of the law is that the best interests of the child are front and centre. So no, the child is not more important than the law. The law reflects the child's importance.

That's a very naive point of view.

Waving the law about will force the school to do something that is in the best interests of this child and the other children instead of what they are currently doing, which is taking the easy path regardless of the detrimental effect on the child.

But you don't know it is detrimental, do you? It may be the right thing. As I've said, I've seen it work before. The child front and centre, as you say. But the law isn't always what's best for the child.

I would say give it a week or so to see how he settles. No child should be forced into school while in a state of crippling distress. No matter what the law says.

No, it is not a naive point of view. The law about children is framed entirely around their best interests. The law specifically states that, whenever the courts have to make a decision concerning a child's upbringing, the child's welfare is the paramount consideration. You may think the courts get this wrong, especially if you follow the way the press often misrepresent court cases concerning children, but that is the law.

And yes, I do know it is detrimental. Making the problem go away by excluding the child without looking at whether the child has SEN or considering alternatives to managing the child's behaviour is clearly detrimental to the child.

The law does not require anyone to force a child into school in a state of crippling distress. No-one has suggested that should happen. But that does not give the school carte blanche to illegally exclude children.

From the school's perspective, they should be seeing if there are underlying issues causing the distress (SEN for example) and looking at approaches to manage his distress. They clearly haven't done either of those things. Once they have done those things, if all approaches have failed, they can legally exclude him.

All the law requires is that the school does its job properly and acts in the child's best interests. This sounds like one of those schools that is too quick to throw problem children on the scrap heap.

OP, below I've copied extracts from your posts, they do show indications of neurodiversity, (anxiety and overwhelm and not being in control causing him to lash out)
Please see your GP and ask for a referral for assessment. For the school to have called in a behaviour specialist by week 2 of term is a massive red flag telling you his behaviour is way, way different to his peers. Have you spoken to the school SENCO? Ask them for support for your assessment request, ask for a copy of the behaviour specialist's report to take to the GP.
All behaviour is communication and your little lad is telling everyone the only way he knows how that he is out of his depth right now.

From your posts,
"I feel so sorry for the children he has hurt and frightened but he is also frightened himself - a lot of his 'problem' behaviour is uncontrollable/inconsolable outbursts.

ADHD and ASD is pretty high in my family - especially for the boys in my generation but we have seen nothing in our children or nephews/nieces etc.
Let's just say I would be just as unsurprised if he was as I would if he was not.

They outsourced for a behaviour specialist

"He threw himself about and had to be restrained to prevent himself from hitting his own head.

He is quite confident (academically/socially) and also very anxious in new settings. When he is triggered, I have to admit even as his mum, he can be difficult to simmer back down."

@Okarava can you handle evacuating 28 other children while having chairs thrown at you and them? Then when the other children are somewhere safe being repeatedly hit and kicked while waiting for someone else to come support? That’s the reality for many teachers (yes even if 4 year olds) and is undoubtably traumatic for the other children.

From the school's perspective, they should be seeing if there are underlying issues causing the distress (SEN for example) and looking at approaches to manage his distress. They clearly haven't done either of those things. Once they have done those things, if all approaches have failed, they can legally exclude him.

You don't know that. They could well be applying for funding and a SEN assessment for all you know but here you are banging on about the law again. This is very early days. The school know the child better than you or the law. I worked with such children for many, many years and sometimes a gradual reintroduction works well, alongside an assessment.

The school cannot summon up a 1 to 1 out of the ether. You seem to think it's all so easy. It really, really isn't.

This may work.

Obviously we don't want to go back to the 'bad old days' when any 'difficult' child was shipped off the premises to some other, sometimes dubious, institution, which is why these laws have been brought in to stop that sort of thing. However, I think we have gone too far the other way and whilst the lawyers etc are arguing about the law and how all children should have access to mainstream education there is possibly a small child distressed beyond belief in an environment that is not good for them, no matter how hard the school tries

@DancesWithTortoises

From the school's perspective, they should be seeing if there are underlying issues causing the distress (SEN for example) and looking at approaches to manage his distress. They clearly haven't done either of those things. Once they have done those things, if all approaches have failed, they can legally exclude him.

You don't know that. They could well be applying for funding and a SEN assessment for all you know but here you are banging on about the law again. This is very early days. The school know the child better than you or the law. I worked with such children for many, many years and sometimes a gradual reintroduction works well, alongside an assessment.

The school cannot summon up a 1 to 1 out of the ether. You seem to think it's all so easy. It really, really isn't.

This may work.

Yes, I do know that they haven't done these things that they should do BEFORE excluding a child. I set that out clearly. They shouldn't exclude him pending an assessment. It is not illegal to do so but it is not best practice. They may be arranging an assessment but, given my extensive experience of schools that exclude pupils illegally, I wouldn't hold my breath.

If you read my post properly, I am banging on about the child's best interests, which are protected by law. The law doesn't know the child so it isn't prescriptive. The law is clear that the child's welfare is paramount. It sets out a process for legally excluding a child. That process is available to the school. They haven't used it. Instead they have illegally excluded him.

The school could, if it wished, legally exclude the OP's son, ensure that he was still being given work to do or alternative provision for his education was made, and then plan a gradual reintroduction. There is nothing in the law that stops them from doing that, although they would probably run foul of an independent review at this stage on the grounds that they haven't spent enough time looking for alternatives. Instead, they have resorted to an illegal exclusion without any satisfactory provision for his ongoing education. It is therefore almost certain that they have not complied with any of the notification requirements.

@toomuchlaundry

Obviously we don't want to go back to the 'bad old days' when any 'difficult' child was shipped off the premises to some other, sometimes dubious, institution, which is why these laws have been brought in to stop that sort of thing. However, I think we have gone too far the other way and whilst the lawyers etc are arguing about the law and how all children should have access to mainstream education there is possibly a small child distressed beyond belief in an environment that is not good for them, no matter how hard the school tries

If there is, there are avenues open for the school to deal with it legally. They don't have to resort to illegal exclusions. They could do it properly and ensure the child receives the support they need.

What I was challenging is the assertion that part time timetables are illegal.

But they are, unless they are supplemented by something like home tuition, or unless the child is too ill (physically or mentally) to attend school and there is medical evidence supporting it. Each parent has a duty to ensure their child receives full time education, and there is a concomitant duty on local authorities to provide adequate school places or other educational arrangements to enable that to happen.

Yes, I know that frequently a part time timetable is agreed by parents and no-one makes a fuss, but those are generally cases that would be covered by the medical exception anyway. All too often, however, parents get bullied into agreeing because they believe the myth that this is lawful.

The OP is not arguing that her child is perfect. She is clear that there are issues that need to be dealt with. That does not mean we should blindly support the school when it is acting in this way. If the school was dealing with this appropriately it would have my full support. It isn't.

But some of us think it is being dealt with appropriately. You don't. Fair enough, but it doesn't mean you are right.

But @prh47bridge is right, because they are quoting the law. You might think the law is wrong, but that is irrelevant. If, for the sake of argument, this case ended up in court then a defence by the school that some people might think their reaction was appropriate would get them absolutely nowhere.