What happens when a school can’t meet a child’s needs?

[tiddlerislate]

Child is in reception but repeating the year. Severely autistic and non verbal, not toilet trained. He has an EHCP.

Parents want him to attend the local primary school but they have expressed concern they can’t meet his needs. I guess I’m asking what happens then - whose views bear most weight? Can parents insist he attends the school they want him to?

We were told by the headteacher of our Ofsted Outstanding, excellent-reputation-for-SEN-support, mainstream primary school that our child “would have to be drowning” (yes she did use such an awful word) before the LA would consider a special school for him. He was drowning. The school refused to see it though. The senco asked me “what is it you want with all of these diagnoses?!” like I was making it all up. The class teacher accused me of lying and paranoia and trying to make the school lie to the LA. Eventually we left the area and moved 100 miles to a small private school with amazing SEN provision which looked after him amazingly well until we could convince our new LA that he needed to be in a specialist school. At one point the new LA wanted to stick him in a colossal comprehensive and leave him to learn through the classroom window, whilst arriving at each class 5 minutes late and leaving 5 minutes early. Meanwhile, at the primary school, the senco was promoted to deputy head and the class teacher who’d accused me of lying and paranoia was made senco.

There aren’t anywhere near enough places in specialist schools. And even if there were, LAs have such squeezed budgets that they’ll do anything they can to place the child in the cheapest option. And if that’s learning through the window in a gigantic comprehensive after a small infant school placement failed, then apparently so be it.

He is! He's verbal now but in a special which is meeting his academic needs bespoke.

DD is perfectly capable of taking a full (or almost full) clutch of GCSEs. There's no special that can meet that need locally, the nearest fit lets them take 4 or 5- luckily she will move into a secondary with a fab approach to inclusion.

Truly kids with SEND feel like the next front in the culture wars.

Yes! Mainstream schools are not set up for that.

Specialist schools can cater for a bright, non-verbal child. Mainstream cannot.

Specialist can spend time building social skills. Mainstream cannot.

In fact, if a child is bright enough to take GCSEs early, that can happen in a specialist setting because they're not bound by the NC in the same way mainstream is. You cannot take exams early in a state mainstream.

Specialist settings have actual plans in place to teach social skills, and life skills. DCs school takes them into town once a term to practice shopping for example, including the social skills needed to talk to a shop assistant and ask for something.

The headteacher must follow the Equality Act 2010 which includes making all reasonable adjustments so that access to education is equal for all and barriers are removed.

This is included in the SEN Code of Practice which schools must follow.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7dcb85ed915d2ac884d995/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf

Great in theory. But of you have 3 or 4 children who need 2:1 care outside the classroom. Where on earth are you going to find adults to go with them or pay for them?

And if the adults are not familiar to the children needing help it can actually make the problems worse.
In practise - I can't keep everyone safe. Currently debating if / how we can do the usual swimming lessons.

You have to be realistic though about what the reality of the situation is when needs aren’t being met. At the moment, the two kids with most severe needs spend most of their time hanging around the corridor (not getting an education) because as soon as they’re in the classroom everyone else is at risk of being sworn at, hit or kicked. It is an absolute failure of a system for everyone and is just so sad to say.

It’s easy to say the kids should just be compassionate but that only goes so far when you’re essentially at risk of being assaulted on a daily basis.

And that assumes every child with an EHCP is violent.

They aren’t.

Being autistic and none verbal doesn’t mean you’re going to assault people.

There are a lot of generalisations and hyperbole on this thread - and it's easy to see why, because we, understandably, tend to see things through the prism of our own experience.

There are definitely many (far too many) instances of all the examples given in this thread... children struggling in unsuitable placements, staff who are struggling to manage a full curriculum and full class, with not enough funding or support, schools and staff who have a poor attitude to children with send and parents struggling to navigate their way through a system that is not fit for purpose...
...but...

• not all mainstream schools are bad at supporting children with send... not all specialist provisions are perfect for children with complex needs.
• not all children with send are the same (this shouldn't need to be said!) ... there are children who are non verbal or very delayed/disordered with language and development, who are very sociable and enjoy friendships in mainstream and there are children with similar needs who are not!
• there is a vast difference between primary and secondary in terms of how children will manage the curriculum, the environment and the school day.
• parents have many different reasons for wanting a particular school, and to dismiss those reasons as purely selfish, is extremely unfair.

I do believe that inclusion in mainstream, can work when done well, and when schools work with parents and outside professionals well in the interests of the child. That isn't to say it can also fail spectacularly. In order to support children and families, I think the way the education system is set up, funded, and managed is going to have to change in such a fundamental way, that it is going to take a long time and a whole shift in how we perceive education... with specialist and mainstream.

@tiddlerislate have you ever had to stop a small that is so distressed they're determined to harm themselves? From smacking their head on the pavement, to pulling their hair out, scratching themselves and lashing out at you because they're trying to stop them?

No, not all children are the same of course, but sometimes inclusion at all costs , often comes at a very high cost, to the child themselves.

As It happens yes. But that’s nothing to do with this.

BlueSilverCats, I don't think anyone on here is advocating for "inclusion at all costs".

What is pushing for mainstream, when LA and all professionals say specialist, if not "inclusion at all costs"?

LAs will do anything possible, including numerous illegal practices, to avoid paying for specialist. If even the LA are agreeing specialist, then mainstream is 100% not suitable and to force a child into that environment is cruel.

I didn't see a post stating that LA, professionals etc had all recommended specialist.
I still don't think think that wanting a particular mainstream school, is necessarily because of a belief in 'inclusion at all costs'
I also don't think the assumption that specialist is always the better option is correct.

I think we've drifted from the original question. The original question was "What happens when a school can't meet needs". Not "when it's a bit tricky" or "when it's inconvenient" or "when Tabitha and Josiah don't want to share a table with them".

In this situation:

• severely autistic. In order to get that label, there must be a high level of repetitive behaviour, or need for routine, or difficulties with social communication,

-non verbal. Regardless of level of intelligence, this child needs specialist support to aid communication. -not toilet trained - the least of their worries.

A mainstream class with 30 pupils. Many of whom will increasingly lack the basic 'school ready' skills. Chaos. Then a child who needs predictability, consistency, routine.

This child is already repeating year R, so 1 year behind. It's not enough.

Children with significant special needs don't pick up social skills from other children. If they did, they wouldn't be so far behind. Similarly, children with true learning disabilities don't just 'catch up'. They're learning and developing at a slower rate, so the gap widens rather than closing. Think about it. For the gap to close, they'd have to be learning at an even faster rate than their NT peers.

Teachers in special schools have the skills to maximise progress in children who have learning challenges because of a developmental condition. They have training in speech and language therapy. They have SaLTs on site, often, so programmes can be modified frequently. They have OT activities built in to lesson time.

It is failing children to expect them to cope with a mainstream class. They don't have a peer group. Even children with fairly subtle autistic traits are sniffed out and noticed.

Despite what you've heard, children don't learn how to socialise with other children through sitting in social skills groups (so, what would you say when you meet someone new? How about, have you got any hobbies? Try saying that to your neighbour).
Children learn by interacting with other children who have better social skills than they do. It's an oxymoron suggesting you can learn to interact with children by interacting with adults. Once a term to practice shopping - you're having a laugh. DS can do that himself, but he can't ask a group of calm accepting children what they are talking about because he has no practice in doing that - he knows which child in his class is likely to bite him if he gets into his personal space, and which one might not be the best to listen to if he suggests something daft to do on the teacher's chair (spinning around will lead to throwing up...) but he has no idea how to hold a conversation with good, calm conversationalists because there are none in his school.
Or does he not have the right to have friends who are good, calm conversationalists?

And no, specialist schools are NOT set up to get children GCSEs. There is no school within travelling distance of us that has even approaching the national average GCSE pass rate. Most have a 0% pass rate.

I notice you gloss over the sheer abuse taking place in some of these schools. Would you want your DC in a school like this?

@drspouse I understand what you're saying & I agree that it's good for SEN children to have NT friends. Wherever this can be facilitated without negatively impacting the NT children it should be. I also think NT children get a lot from being friends with SEN children. To an extent, I think more funding & a better organised system will allow for more of this.

However, there's a growing problem of NT children & staff in mainstream being seriously affected by the way inclusion is being done. Risks to physical safety, losing out on opportunities because SEN children aren't able to cope etc are not acceptable. And in these situations, the needs of the multiple NT children to have a safe education with good opportunities outstrips the SEN child/their parents wanting them to learn social skills from the NT children. It's ultimately not another child's job to teach your child social skills- they're entitled to a safe & good education for themselves.

I think instead of the division on this thread, parents should be banding together for a better SEN system which will benefit all children and all staff. Where inclusion is possible & beneficial, it should be supported much better than it is now. Where it's not, the specialist provision needs to be MUCH better and much more tailored.

Is it not all children's right to learn how to get along with both neurotypical and neurodiverse children?

It's ultimately not another child's job to teach your child social skills- they're entitled to a safe & good education for themselves.

ALL children - including those with SEN - are entitled to a safe and good education. Society contains people with neurodevelopmental disabilities and NT children will be expected to rub along with them in families, communities and workplaces - probably in ever-increasing numbers, given diagnosis rates. As a society, we can’t afford special school in the numbers that your final paragraph implies, and the starting position should always be mainstream with support. Demonising disabled children and putting their wants and needs below those who tick some fictional NT “box” is quite revolting.

@Vinvertebrate I think you've quoted a section of my post out of context. To clarify, that statement was in the context of a situation where due to unmet SEN needs, NT children's safety & education was compromised.

If you read my post through, I think we actually agree. Put simply (1) we need more funding, better training & better organised system. (2) mainstream should be the starting point, with support tailored to individual SEN/any needs because NT and SEN children get a lot out of being with each other and (3) where mainstream isn't possible, there needs to be better specialist provision than there is.

You seem not to like the fact I brought up NT children's right to a safe & good education. This was in no way to take away from SEN kids' rights. It was to highlight that when SEN needs aren't being met, everyone loses out & when SEN is supported well (whatever that looks like), it benefits both NT and SEN children.

Ultimately though, when physical safety is an issue, that has to be priority. It's no use saying "but this child has a right to a mainstream education" if they are compromising the safety of the other children (who may be NT/SEN).

Please don't quote people out of context & call them revolting. It really isn't a good look.

@anonhop we might be violently agreeing, but I don't think so.

Your post gives the impression (perhaps unintentionally) that "SEN" and "NT" children can and should be conveniently stratified, and that the interests of the NT kids should always pip those of the SEN when push comes to shove. When it comes to - say - school trips or other opportunities, there are laws in place to protect disabled people from attitudes like this, and they require reasonable adjustments to be made by schools in these scenarios, without exception. Those laws are required precisely because people invariably take the path of least resistance, and it's more convenient for everyone if the SEN kids are not accommodated. As a mother whose autistic child would have been prevented from participating in many activities while in mainstream had I not been extremely vocal about the requirements of the 2010 Equalities Act, I know exactly what "if it can be facilitated without negatively impacting the NT children" means in reality - it means the autistic/ND children are left out in every case and experience further disadvantage compared to their peers, while every other pupil has a jolly nice time. That's not a good look either.

As for "risks to physical safety" as a result of inclusion, could you clutch your pearls any tighter? My autistic child struggles massively with regulation and can lash out at others (as can many primary-aged children without ND), but somehow buggered along in mainstream for two years without damaging anyone. He had to really, because the LA weren't in any hurry to place him elsewhere. Even in his current specialist setting, where pretty much every child has this profile (or worse), nobody has been "seriously affected" or "at risk" of violence. Yes, this requires well-trained staff who do their jobs properly and understand ND conditions - surely, this should be the goal well before we shove the ND kids out of the classroom? Would you exclude a primary-aged child in a wheelchair from PE because he was stopping the more able majority making decent progress in football? If not, what is it about ND conditions that makes you feel differently?

Your final paragraph is rather naïve. As a SEN parent who belongs to numerous support groups, no amount of "parents banding together" can give LA's the budgets to make a difference, even if the appetite and expertise was there (and in my experience, it isn't). Parents of disabled children have quite enough to contend with - not least the attitudes on display in this thread - but you want to put the onus on them to make things better, while preserving the status quo of inclusion only "where possible and beneficial for NT children" (fixed that for you).

Yes, I absolutely agree that specialist education should be better than it is. I am old enough to remember when virtually all maintained specialist schools were closed in the interests of inclusion (which was actually all about money, of course). For whatever reason, we have many multiples more SEN children now, and far fewer places to put them other than mainstream. Anecdotally, there was no suitable LA school/hub for my child's needs, but even if there had been, locally all specialist provision was full, often beyond capacity already. The only option was a specialist independent at a cost of £100k-ish a year for the next 12 years. Pointing out that the majority of SEN/ND children will HAVE to have their needs met in mainstream schools, with whatever adjustments may be required, is not a political or aspirational statement - it's fiscal reality.

Please don't "other" disabled children relative to their peers. The emphasis should be on making mainstream work for ALL children (including the 1/67-odd who are likely to be on the autistic spectrum), not nitpicking over if and when inclusion is acceptable to the NT/able majority.

This is a brilliant post.

@Vinvertebrate I think you're reading attitudes into my post that I simply don't hold, perhaps because you've experienced them elsewhere?

I totally accept you've got more skin in the game & lived experience than I have so I'm happy to defer to you on this.

SEN children should be accommodated as much as humanly possible in mainstream. Their rights are just as important as NT kids! I genuinely believe that.

Equality in education means everyone being supported to achieve their best. Re trips- every child should be accommodated & supported to attend & make the most out of it. However, if there is a scenario where a SEN child cannot attend/ participate, it is so wrong to use "equality" as a reason to take that opportunity away from all children. That's my point. It might be at that point that more support needs to be in place to allow the child to attend or they need another setting/ an alternative opportunity.

I also am in NO WAY trying to say SEN children are violent and I sincerely hope that my post didn't come across like that. I was trying to say that this thread and others have shown examples of SEN children whose behaviour does pose a risk to the other children. This cannot be allowed to happen. As I've been saying, all options to support the child in mainstream should be exhausted before moving them to an appropriate, suitable setting.

We can't reform one part of the system without the rest of it. Eg, we can't start moving children out of mainstream without the specialist provision in place or vice versa with suitable support in mainstream.

We do fundamentally agree, but you either are reading into my posts attitudes/ beliefs I don't hold, resent me even mentioning NT kids' rights and how they are being failed by the system, or you are just looking for an argument.

It's also not "othering" SEN children to discuss the differences in support & structures they need to NT children. That's a straw man.