Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Why was the latest "inclusion" thread (Staffroom topic) deleted?

34 replies

bialystockandbloom · 25/09/2014 21:53

Blimey, I'd just written a calm and eloquent post, and pfft, it had gone. With a deletion message that it was deleted because "it wound up some parents".

FFS how about being deleted because it was yet another recent example of prejudice and disablism? No bloody wonder it "wound some parents" up, the OP was offensive and ignorant in the extreme.

MN this is so disappointing. Why is it the parents who are trying patiently to explain yet again about life with SN who get stamped on?

OP posts:
EllenMumsnet · 25/09/2014 23:11

Evening folks.
Just wanted to chip in about thread deletions, and the one that was zapped earlier.

Clearly we try not to stifle debate, but in cases where we think there's a chance that someone has been deliberately goody, we will delete their thread / post.

Without going into too much detail as it's coming up to bedtime TSSDNCOP Wink , we respond to complaints that come in via the report button. Fanjo admits to reporting the thread earlier, but was not alone in doing so. (Indeed, WRT to the perceived discrepancy between the Victoria Beckham thread that was deleted, and another one that shames a woman because of her appearance, we were able to get off the starting blocks much more quickly with the former because it was reported earlier than the latter - which will, of course, be looked into).

In the case of the staffroom thread, we felt that the feelings of some of the parents of kids with SEN who use the site needed to be respected - it's hard to have to regularly educate other folk - although clearly we can see that sometimes such threads contain such gems of wisdom, advice and information that they are worth persevering with, and then preserving.

If we got it wrong, we are sorry. We do try our utmost to take an impartial and balanced look at all the info we have in front of us - and we still manage to cock up pretty regularly. But our hearts are in the right place, honest Grin

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 26/09/2014 07:17
Thanks
Sunna · 26/09/2014 08:26

There is a debate to be had about this. I know many teachers who think inclusion isn't working in its current form because of inadequate funding and support.

It would be good to have this debate without goady posts or people getting emotional and demanding its deletion.

There are enough posts on MN from parents of children with additional needs to prove that the present system is a mess at times and it would be interesting to see if people can think of a way forward.

bialystockandbloom · 26/09/2014 10:37

Sunna, i absolutely agree.

OP posts:
AliceDoesntLiveHereAnymore · 26/09/2014 11:21

The problem is these topics get brought up not in the nature of a debate, but usually someone taking shots at something like the inclusion thread, which immediately starts it out on an offensive note.

And besides, IMO it's not necessarily that inclusion is not working. It's that the children that would do well with inclusion are not getting appropriate support, and the children that would do better in a specialised setting are not being allowed by the LA to go to that specialised setting.

Example: With my ds1, every single professional (educational and medical) that worked with him agreed that he would be much better in a specialised school (and the specialised school had a place for him and were quite happy to take him), however the LA refused point blank. I had to push for tribunal, had tons and tons of documentation and paperwork from everyone involved, and STILL the LA fought it. They finally caved in and agreed at the very last moment without going to tribunal. Waste of time and money IMO. And in the meantime, my ds was struggling along in a school that (while they were doing the best they could - no complaints about the MS school) could not meet his needs. Now he's in the SS, he's doing much much better.

And so many parents stop pushing when the LA says no and get no further.

stargirl1701 · 26/09/2014 11:25

The argument that inclusion is poorly funded is a world away from the opinion the OP was espousing. She was against inclusion in principle. There are very few teachers I know who support that. But, the vast majority would argue inclusion needs more funding.

bialystockandbloom · 26/09/2014 13:08

alice that's it, appropriate support is the key.

One reason inclusion doesn't always work is because the system for mainstream schools does not recognise that different teaching approaches are needed simultaneously. It's not enough for them to say "we're inclusive" simply because they allow a child with SN to attend. They need to damn well get teaching staff in working FT who have proper training in differentiated approaches.

At the moment it seems so widespread that children with SN are allowed to attend ms as long as their behaviour doesn't cause problems for teachers, and as long as they've got a babysitter who will just remove them from the class if they "kick off" - rather than training for teachers how to approach teaching in a different way, or to recognise triggers for behaviour that arise from other things like anxiety, social excusion from peers, difficulties interacting etc. It never fails to shock me that TAs can be just any old person from down the road. The most vulnerable children, with the highest needs, are given to the people with the least amount of relevant training.

Effective teaching for some children with some particular SN sometimes just means the CT thinking about what motivates each child to learn. Behavioural difficulties don't mean a child is unteachable in ms school, but that more probably, the child is playing up because the normal approach relies on a child having 'normal' motivations to learn (eg social compliance, not wanting to get in trouble etc) as well as being able to focus and understand (eg if a child has language disorder or sensory needs, having to sit still and try and understand a teacher just talking for 30 minutes is going to be really hard).

My ds has HF asd, and we also went through tribunal (also settled before) - not to get more hours on his statement, but to get a specific kind of support targeting social behaviour, play, and interaction. The LA had no reason to battle against us, as we weren't asking for more funding - it was more because what we wanted required getting staff in with experience in a spcific kind of approach which wasn't just the normal bog-standard TA with no expertise, using 'visual aids', and a babysitter to whisk ds out of the class if he was getting "distressed". The opposition was purely ideological, and had nothing to do with inclusion. What we have now really is a waste of LA money - a TA for 25 hours a week who has no need to support ds in the classroom, but only at social times - but without us and our own independent team who go in, there would be no training for her to do this. Crazy.

Sorry, essay over Blush

OP posts:
RowanMumsnet · 26/09/2014 16:15

Hello

Just to follow up on our previous post - you're quite right: the deletion message should really have said 'deliberately inflammatory'. The deletion message was intended to convey the 'deliberately inflammatory' vibe, but probably didn't do so clearly enough - sorry.

bialystockandbloom · 26/09/2014 16:28

Thanks MN Rowan and Ellen Smile

Hope what I was trying to say made sense I'd had a few glasses of wine last night

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread