Am I being pedantic?

[inappropriatelyemployed]

I am a new Governor at DS's school. Got some progress reports before first meeting on 'vulnerable groups' which doesn't include children with SEN/disabilities. Am going to ask if they are tracked separately. I presume they are.

Vulnerable group categories include Travellers, free school meals etc.

Report says things like; 5 Travellers (3 are SEN).

Children arent't SEN: they have SEN. I hate that 'SEN children' label.

Am I being majorly picky to raise?

Thanks Polter - it is the same with free school meals FSM - 'FSM children' 10 of whom are SEN.

I think it just sounds awful and data driven and insensitive to real needs - categorisation rather than a real understanding of what the vulnerabiities are.

I suppose it carries on from the term 'looked after child' which is equally crap!

Not pedantic at all IE I heard the looked after children group referred to as LAC's the other day.

Imagine how damaging it would be for the children to here themselves referred to in this way

I don't like that phrasing either. Even if it's short for "3 of them are on the SEN register" or similar, the phrasing they used is insensitive at best and offensive at worst. It implies that that is all there is to these children.

"5 children from the Traveller community, 3 of whom have additional educational needs" would have been better, in my opinion.

I am glad it is not just me!

Oops hear

If it is an issue of brevity, then frankly acronyms across the board would be prudent. For example... 13 children from travelling communities, of whom 5 have special educational needs and 7 receive free school meals would read 13 TC 5 SEN 7 FSM

Whoever assembled this information needs to learn that children are children, not categories

I know - it also just looks too much like 'data' produced to 'tick boxes' rather than demonstrating a genuine understanding the reasons that certain children are more vulnerable than others and the impact this has on learning.

I may have missed the point here, IE, But in your thread about More House school you say "I have an Aspie". Isn't that the same attitude?

Er, no. One is an affectionate abbreviation used by many people with Asperger's to describe themselves. The other is a data code.

But thanks.

I wouldn't like it either. I'd never be a Governor responsible for SEN.

Incidentally, how do you become a Governor. I had a look how it was done here but became pretty confused tbh Parent Governors seem to be selected on their IT expertise promises and the other Governors seem to be some kind of -in-crowd. But I might be wrong.

Schools will advertise vacancies for parent governors and hold elections if there is more than one applicant.

CofE schools also have foundation governors.

There are also community governors for community schools.

It's not a nice way to phrase things at all. Similar to saying someone IS Downs Syndrome. Or IS Aspergers. I don't like that. I don't mind Aspie...mainly because it's accepted in the community. But no child IS Special Educational Needs. It's a lazy and offensive way to phrase things and I would bring it up with the relevant person.

You're not being pedantic, IE. It's a clear situation where someone, somewhere needs a lesson in people first language - though don't be surprised if you get accused of PC gorn mad.

It is Ofsted who use these categories so schools have to sort pupils with these headings and use them for ease of handling. Pupils with conditions should be referred to as ' children with...' Except the Deaf community who prefer 'deaf children'. (Although this may have changed since I last looked!).

Ofsted have categories of vulnerability but they don't word them in this way and don't require schools to word them in this way.

There is nothing at all to stop a school describing a child as a child who has SEN as opposed to a 'SEN child' or a child eligible for FSM (how Ofsted describes it) as opposed to a 'FSM child'.

That's me told!

You're not being pedantic, but speaking as a Governor, you'd be prudent to focus on the underlying needs of those children rather than the unfortunate labeling at this stage.

I would look to see if there are trends and overlaps that can be seen in the data (venn diagrams, gotta love them ). Think of a couple of questions that can be raised, where you use the terminology correctly i.e. 'I noticed that of the 5 travelling children, 3 have SEN....does that figure overlap with the data concerning the x Children entitled to Free School Meals of whom 5 have SEN?...

Then, I would privately mention to the Chair of Governors/Head Teacher that the wording is not in line with current accepted terminology.

In other words, show yourself to be focused on the issues relating to Governance, then tackle the politics.