Is this abusive - what do you think?

[direlahere]

If a LSA wrote to you telling you that she had "dunked" your child (aged 3.5)in the swimming pool at school, what would you think?

[madwomanintheattic]

it wasn't a scope school, just a generic sn school with lots of kids with cp. (dd2 had lots of aspiration issues, which is why i asked the op if the ds had a chest infection leading to the febrile convulsions)

[direlahere]

No, no chest infection previously, no health issues, his convulsions were completely out of the blue, raised temperature only - linked to his ear issues.

[Chundle]

I hope you get it sorted dire and that your boy is ok xx

[leiela]

Something like dunking may well be standard practice it may even be benifital for sme children i wouldn't know im not a specialist.

However i do think parents should be warned and given the option to opt out, it's up to the specialists to explain the benifits to the parent and convince them. Ultimatly though it should be the choice of the parents.

the OP did not get a choice and was given no warning

[madwomanintheattic]

it might be worth getting scope's opinion then? particularly if they have this as a policy for kids with cp in their own linked schools.

it might have changed now, btw. this was about 4 years ago. dd2 is 7 now and still swims like a brick, but prefers to spend most of her time underwater, frightening me to death. it hasn't caused any fear etc.

be interesting to see if it was the same school though.

from a legal perspective, if this is an accepted method in (some) sn schools it will be harder to challenge. so you'd need the backing of scope or similar to effect policy change across the board.

you'll also need the lsa to give evidence that she 'dunked' (usuing a head-pushing-down motion) ds. presumably she's happy to state that the school made her push his head under the water. that sounds frankly bizarre to me and a little odd. most of the kids at the sn unit were being physically held up by the 1-1s, with their heads supported, so demonstrating a head-pushing-down-motion isn't similar to the way i've seen it done at all. more just 'dipping', as you can't let go of them to push them under anyway.

well, good luck. you obviously feel strongly about it. i can understand that, if you thought that she had pushed your son's head under the water.

[direlahere]

Thanks Chundle, my son is ok, infact he is fabulous and we absolutely adore him, he is just fearful of water now and has complex needs. x

[Al1son]

Just caught up on this thread and am shocked at the responses you've had. If it is common practice it should be stopped. I cannot imagine how it is justified because it is bound to cause anxiety for a significant number of children.

I think you are justified in taking this as far as it can go OP if you have the emotional and financial reserves to do so.

I don't usually advocate dragging people through courts, etc for doing their job and I'm very aware as I work with children that any decision, however small, can be controversial but nobody seems to be willing to reconsider this practice and it does seem quite barbaric.

I never put my baby's head in the water against her will in toddler swimming lessons. We were told that once they had outgrown the reflex which closes off their airway it was too dangerous. I wouldn't even splash the face of a child who cannot withhold consent never mind put him in the position where he could easily inhale a whole lungful of water.

[direlahere]

madwoman I have no idea if she will be happy to say what she has said to my husband and I in evidence we shall have to wait and see, we have no contact with her anymore but we will state what she has said to us and the issue is that no-one has asked her as part of any investigation....why would that be? If she were simply now stating that she didn't dunk him or that she meant something else by the word "dunk" then I would have thought that would be stated as part of the school's investigation? It isn't.

Good idea re Scope I will check this with them.

Thanks Alison for your post, I really am not looking for any individual to be held accountable, it's the practice I want to be looked at, not anyone's role in what happenned. I also want parents to know this could happen so they can ensure it doesn't happen to their children if it's not what they would want.

Leila I'm no swimming specialist either but like you state I am keen that parents are aware and are making informed choices for their children rather than finding out afterwards.

[madwomanintheattic]

well, the school have said that it didn't happen - so presumably you would be in a 'he said' 'she said' dispute, and the school presumably having said it didn't happen in the manner she described, would be claiming she was either exaggerating or had an axe to grind/ was unreliable. or used the word 'dunked' inadvisedly.

it's difficult to argue for this as a policy change, when the school deny it happened anyway, surely? so the only evidence you do have of it happening, is the lsa's discussion with your husband, where she made the 'pushing head down' gesture?

i must have missed where you gave info about the school report - sorry - as the lsa said she was told or ordered to push his head under by the teacher/ instructor in charge at the time, preumably the teacher and the other supervising lsa's either corroborated this or they or didn't? or are you saying there has never been a full investigation, and you don't know whether the other lsa's and teacher were interviewed? there will have been plenty of witnesses.

what did the report say, exactly? just that it didn't happen? that they put the face and nose in the water, but didn't push his head under? have you seen the report?

does the lsa still work for the school?

do you have an independent medical report saying that the eardrum perforation and subsequent febrile convulsions were due to (or could have been due to) being submerged? or could they have been due to his ongoing ear difficulties, which he was waiting for grommets for anyway?



i know i probably sound a little harsh - but imo you are probably better off questioning the water policy as you feel strongly about it, unless you have absolute proof of causation (and proof the event actually happened).

fwiw i probably sound reluctant to encourage you to fight on as dd2 has got an ongoing medical negligence case (5 years into it now) and i do understand how utterly futile these things can be. sometimes it isn't worth the fight. if you have the energy, i wish you all the luck in the world trying to alter the pool policy, but if the school are denying it even happened and denying such a policy even exists, you probably aren't going to get very far.

[davidsotherhalf]

what really pi**es me off is that schools don't have to answer to anyone, as parents we have to answer to ss etc if we do anything wrong, schools only have to answer to govs who always side with school. my dd gets very upset and self harms. dd told her 1;1 that she wanted to hurt herself. dd was escorted out of school put on main road, where dd was walking into traffic trying to get knocked over by cars. but 1;1 says dd was ok because she was watching dd and laughing shouting at dd to f off back to other county where we had moved from months before. we went to govs and was told this was normal behaviour for the staff at this school and i can't do anything about it. we bought this up with the ombudsman and she can't investigate schools in this area. she investigated lea and on the report there was 27 failings found by school and i can't do anything about it unless i get solicitor that i can't afford.

[direlahere]

davidsotherhalf - sorry to hear you are having such a crappy experience with school, I share your concerns around the lack of accountability of schools and can only see this getting worse with the growth of academies which do not have the same requirements in terms of accountability as other schools. Shocking that the protection for our young people is being removed by the current policies.

Madwoman, do you work at my child's school? Your response does not seem like that of a parent although I am grateful for you taking the time to respond. I don't need to proove the eardrum issue, it doesn't matter to me what other people think and I am not looking for compensation just the rights of vulnerable children and their parents being upheld.

The more parents that know dunking can be a consequence of allowing their child to go swimming and that there will be no consequence or accountability the better.

I am certain it wouldn't happen at a mainstream school and it shouldn't happen with our more vulnerable children. That Sarah Teather agrees that parents should be asked to consent but that the regulatory body Ofsted refuses to acknowledge this, begs for me at least, the question as to wether Ofsted is committed to protecting our children's rights and those of parents of vulnerable children.

[madwomanintheattic]

i doubt it, direla. not unless your current school is in canada and masquerading as a bank. i've been a parent of a child with cp for nearly 8 years and have hung around on the sn board for about ... 4 years or so? something like that.

i've also run a pan-disability charity providing out of school activities for children unable to access mainstream groups. drumming, drama, dance, circus skills, sponsor a solely sn performance of a regional pantomime, and have done a fair bit of disability rights activism.

but i hate to see parents wasting their energy on lengthy legal battles, unless it is energy and money that they have to spare. so i was trying to suggest some areas that might make it easier for you to see this investigation through on a legal footing (like having proof of injury, or contacting a major organisation who have a vested interest). and that's despite not feeling particularly strongly about the activity itself, having experienced it first hand and seen many children benefit. i'm not saying it's a good thing, just saying that having seen the way it is carried out in one particular sn school, it's fine. and dd2 benefited from it. despite having cp/ being non verbal etc etc.

many apologies for trying to help.

just trying to provide an opinion based on experience. (y'know, like you asked for. you didn't mention that you only wanted replies that screamed 'yes! def abuse!')

but as you said, i'm the only one that believes it isn't necessarily abuse. oddly i appear to also be the only one who has actually experienced it first hand.

but hey ho. what do i know? a second hand uncorroborated lsa story that has been denied by everyone else is obviously the true one, and i am an la stalker.

whatever.

i'm sure you are doing it for the right reasons, but don't let it consume you. you have more important things in your life, i'm sure. i know i do.

[direlahere]

Thanks madwoman for your constructive post, good luck with your work in Canada.

[cory]

can I ask as an ignorant outsider what the benefits are of dunking a child with SN? not something you would imagine as a desirable thing with an NT child. what does it do?

[madwomanintheattic]

it's not dunking in that emotive sense, cory. (not the way i've seen it done anyway)

it's a way of getting kids used to having water on their faces etc, and is a gradual build up, usually. as i said upthread, it's usually part of a very standard pool time routine involving singing games etc etc, and a watering can. so the child starts of with water being dribbled on their shoulders, and eventually moves on to it being dribbled on their head, then sort of rained on (so they get water on their face) and then eventually just a quick dip under the water. by that point they are used to sensation of water, have gor used to holding their breath whilst the water is trickling on their face, and then when they are ready, they get a quick dip. all part of a game - i think it was part of a song, (might have been 'all fall down'? dunno. can't remember)

the children are expecting it, it's part of the routine, and it might take weeks of gradually increasing the watering can flow/ moving it to different parts of the body. the children were all being held/ supported, loved the singing and the games, and none of them had any problem with being dipped under the water (once they had built up to it) at the right bit of the song. the ones who could blow bubbles went through the same putting their faces in the water routine as nt kids get in their swimming classes. the only difference is that the helpers support the kids to join in, instead of having a class of nt kids who dip themselves under water. yes, sometimes it takes a couple weeks before they build up the confidence, but they usually do. and then you can't stop them.

it's very similar to nt swimming classes for toddlers in that regard.

it's just a way of getting children used to having water in their faces in a non-threatening environment, so that if it happens accidentally at any point, it's not so traumatic. as you're aware, loads of tots (and even more sn kids) can have huge problems with hair washing and bath time in general, so anything that can increase confidence in water is a good thing. it's not barbaric, there aren't hordes of screaming disabled kids being shoved under the water against their will. and i'm pretty sure if the school are aware of ear issues they would be discussing with the parents whether the child should be in the pool at all, or wearing one of those gucci ear muff things to prevent accidental water ingress. and probably (i dunno, i was a mere parent and just getting on with it, but it seems sensible) if a child is clearly unable to control breathing when the watering can water is trickled on their face, the therapist/ instructor in the pool probably isn't going to judge that they are ready to join in the dipping under bit of the game. so they would just be bobbed to their shoulders/ chin at that point until they were ready. (this would happen with new children for a week or two)

whic is largely why i'm a bit sceptical of the lsa's story that she was ordered to 'dunk' (with a head pushing down motion) a child who was not verbal or independently mobile. and i'm wondering if there has been a misunderstanding of the actual event. it's the only reason why i was trying the lsa's position. i can't envisage any organisation that would be pushing disabled kids under water.

of course, if it did happen as the lsa apparently claims, then of course it should be investigated. but at the moment (after 17mos no less) the school and governing body seem to be saying it didn't happen.

so if you want to go any further, you need proof (ie the lsa making a written statement that she was ordered to push the child under the water by the staff) or at the very least a medical opinion that submersion (whether accidental or deliberate - and no med prof is going to state which one) caused the perforation/ febrile convulsions. even in that case, it could be argued that it happened in the bath whilst washing hair.

but is till don't really know whether the school are denying that they put kids faces under the water, or whether they are saying they use a system similar to that i have seen in place. it's not clear. i have no idea whether the op knows what goes on swimming/ pool time or not, really. i assume dialogue with the la has completely broken down, which is a shame. it makes a working realtionship impossible.

i quite like that my child with a disability was given the same opportunities as her nt siblings in a safe and controlled environment. (including the dipping under the water when she was ready). the other two have dunked themselves repeatedly in nt swimming lessons. and dd2 is actually pretty mobile now, and actually more mobile in water - it's quite freeing for her. as i sad, she has now no fear of water, and will happily dunk herself under the water at any available opprtunity (which is lucky, because her retained reflexes mean that if she tries to actually swim, her head goes under )

that said, i've never been a cotton woolly type - safety is important, but i do believe that kids with disabilities should be given the same opportunities as nt children, as far as possible. sometimes it isn't practical, or safe, but the pool time i've seen and taken part in was.

i can't comment on the op's ds's experience, because i wasn't there. but i'm quite happy that the 'dunking' i've taken part in, was part of a controlled and safe experience. and it lasted, i dunno, half a second? just a quick bob under the water and then up, to much praise and jollity, and carrying on with the songs and lesson.

but i think i've exhausted any last shred of opinion on this now .

was never arguing, just trying to dig a little into what actually happened (rather than just beign given an emotive 'dunking of disabled child shocker' headline) and to see if it matched my positive experience and could have been a misunderstanding. and maybe save the op a wild goose chase.

[madwomanintheattic]

have remembered the exact context it was 'ring a ring o' roses', and after 'attishoo, atishoo' you get to the 'all fall down' so at down, everyone got a little dip. to their shoulders or underwater. and up for a blink, and then 'fishes in the water, fishes in the sea' (with lots of wiggling movement), 'we all jump up with a 1,2,three!' and at three, all the carers or parents lifted the kids up out of the water to their waist or whatever.

it was lovely. obviously with the 'ring a ring o' roses' we were all circling gently in the water in a ring, and i think the watering can was watering the flowers (children). the therapist was the one with can lol, not me. i assume she was the gardener...

not abusive. just a game that they all enjoyed.

aw, i quite enjoyed that little walk down memory lane. haven't thought about it for ages!

[direlahere]

Thanks again for your posts madwoman no wild goose chase, don't worry! I've never dunked my non disabled child either so if my son had not been dunked he would have had the same experiences as his brother x

[direlahere]

It would be good to get some views other than madwomans to the original post perhaps, I'd be happy to receive PMs on the subject. Thanks

[madwomanintheattic]

nt kids don't need 'dunking' they do it themselves at nt swimming lessons. it's part of the curriculum - putting your head underwater.

but i've obviously been dismissed, now. so cheerio.

[Al1son]

If this were a carefully thought out, risk assessed strategy used by well trained teachers who knew how to judge when a child is ready and could justify the potential distress it could cause the school would have taken the trouble to send you a comprehensive report including a copy of the guidelines and risk assessments and possibly invited you in to observe their strategies in action.

I guess that is not the response you encountered. It sounds more like a quick cover up job in which the LEA has been complicit.

[direlahere]

Bless you, you're not dismissed madwoman, I just thought it might be nice to hear from other people, I can assure you my non disabled son would have avoided his head going under the water at age 3.5 as would I still! You obviously feel strongly that this is an integral part of swimming, I say not, so do most mums I talk to, it's ok to have different views. You would be a parent who consents and I would be one that does not, had I had the choice that is!
I am grateful for you sharing your perspective and have already been on the Scope website. The approach is not endorsed on their site but I shall talk to someone there next week, it was a really helpful suggestion of yours.

[direlahere]

Al1son I think you are right about the quick cover up job which has been extended to lets give the mum hell! No risk assessment, no guidelines, no request for consent, no judging when a child is ready as the day the school claim this happenned was his first time in the pool, no comprehensive report, just a fob off one which investigates the wrong date and minimises what happenned. Not sure about the training although some of the governors were involved.

LEA more like obstructive than complicit! What would have avoided all of this angest would have been honest and open dialogue at the time rather than underhand avoidance. The head teacher didn't even mention the approach the school uses until months afterwards long after I raised my concerns with her.

But.....at least my son is not there any more and he is happy in his mainstream school. I am sorry that other parents may be unaware and their vulnerable children exposed to this without their knowledge.

Have checked with Scope they do not endorse the approach and have contracted out their sporting activities so no policies to compare as kindly suggested by madwoman but someone will get back to me.

[direlahere]

that should say angst not angest, my typing is getting really bad!