Teachers don't seem to understand sensory/processing issues at all

[lingle]

Would people think it was fair to say this?

I guess they have no training in it. Plus, I suppose that by the time they meet children at 4 years plus, the original biological sensory problem will be so intricately intertwined with the psychological effects (particularly anxiety). that it's really hard for them unpick it all.

I had a recent meeting with acting nursery manager, reception teacher and school headmistress to discuss DS2's progress and his transition to reception.

We were on the same wavelength talking about understanding various aspects of language and quality of interaction with peers; it was a really great conversation. They also realised the significance of him not getting certain concepts like "it was an accident" and they accept that he is "different".

But when I mentioned sensory issues (starting with an aside about the flashing overhead strip light which was bothering me), they were clueless. For instance, we discussed DS2's progress in coping with the fire alarm. They understand the significance of the fact that he now cries and turns to them for a cuddle when it goes off, with an ever-shorter recovery time, whereas a year ago he used to withdraw and flush the toilets. They said they have at least one fire-alarm phobic in every class. It was strange - I wanted to jump in and say "oh but his fear arises because of his unbalanced auditory processing!" - but as he now responds appropriately by showing his fear and seeking comfort, maybe they don't need to know the original cause?

Ds2 couldn't have coped with this lack of understanding had he started reception at 4.0 - he would have suffered. At 5.0 I think it will be ok - he can express his ideas and emotions reasonably well now. From 3.0 to 4.5 he was blessed with a skilled nursery manager who I believe to have personal experience of sensory issues because of her family history. That has probably made all the difference.

Anyway, it made me think:

1. so many kids with SN of all kinds have sensory/processing issues, surely it would be worth all teachers getting some kind of training in building up a sensory profile - particularly reception teachers?
2. if they did understand sensory/processing issues better, might that not be the most effective way to help them understand kids with an ASD dx better?

Yes, but how do you get the to:

a) believe it is more than an over-protective parents mollycoddling (even when child has dx)

b) Want to learn anything about it

c) Belive that it is something that needs to be understood when afatc their children 'manage' one way or another.

Hmmm, .. I think the answer is to give teachers ownership of the problem.

It must be possible. Forty years ago, teachers might not have recognised dyslexia or taken it seriously. They didn't distinguish between an ability to read words and an ability to understand language, but they do now. They have learned the skill.

funnily enough, I think that your b) and c) are the easy ones.

For b), you simply put it in the teacher training syllabus. People find this stuff pretty engaging.
For c) you have a prospect of political success - of removing a road-block to learning and socialising and getting better results and better citizens.

I find your question a) the really interesting one. I think a teacher responds like this as a way of asserting her expertise and knowledge of the child as a learner. With no background in sensory issues, the teacher will often be wrong. But given enough understanding of a child, and an appropriate background training, she will often be right. So I think the answer is to put sensory issues firmly into the teachers' field of expertise - not something that annoying professionals from other fiefdoms lecture them about or parents try to tell them about.

Most of the teachers I know have a sense of curiosity, so if a child reacts differently or more so to a stimulus than an NT child, usually the first question is 'Why?'
Especially if the stimulus isn't one that is recognised by other children or adults.
For example, my son became irritable and aggressive in his responses one day, without any perceivable cause. Turned out there as a new plug in air freshener in the next room (office) that was way too strong for him. Likewise with textures or sounds outside an NT's range, the teacher might not be have an understanding of what's going on.
If you are trying to educate someone, then they are often more willing to cooperate if they can see the link, and the benefit of making it. What's In It For Me is how we are told to think of it when trying to engage children's interest in something outside their understanding.
I agree with you lingle, but sometimes when you are told as a teacher that you can't be bothered, are too concerned with the other NT children to make an attempt to understand ASCs and are not listening properly, then hackles go up and the response isn't good. That's when you get teachers bleating about the fact that they are expected to cater for 99 different combinations of needs in one class, whilst dancing to the government's tune and getting children to make two sublevels of progress. That benefits no-one.

Some people get it, some dont and i think it really is as simple as that and its not limited just to teachers. My GP for example just doesnt get it.

Ive given up on trying to get others to understand, i now focus on what help they can give.

Very interesting stuff Lingle. For my DS it really took his responses and the extra effort required for them, for the teachers to take it seriously - which luckily they did.

So his refusal to go outside when he might get his feet wet, or his inability to deal with assembly were dismissed initially - 'oh he'll be alright', but when they saw that it really was a problem then they acted on it and now they seem more attuned to those kind of incidents and less likely to fob me off.

"sometimes when you are told as a teacher that you can't be bothered, are too concerned with the other NT children to make an attempt to understand ASCs and are not listening properly, then hackles go up and the response isn't good. That's when you get teachers bleating about the fact that they are expected to cater for 99 different combinations of needs in one class, whilst dancing to the government's tune and getting children to make two sublevels of progress. That benefits no-one."

Yes I see, very interesting, thanks, I can quite understand that response. Under the National Curriculum as it stands, if a teacher recognises and makes adjustments to deal with a sensory issue, will she be rewarded/recognised? Is there any box to tick to show she has done this? If not, is this a problem with the National Curriculum?

Give the time and some adjustments to their targets, I could imagine it being fairly simple for teachers to "screen" for things like face-blindness (do a face-recognition task), tactile defensiveness (who doesn't like stickers,etc?), visual processing problems (who looks out of the corner of his eye?) and problems hearing or processing language (who can't answer questions as well as he can express his own ideas?). They would be at least as skilled as, say, a health visitor to do this sort of observation.

At the moment, because the teachers are't empowered to consider sensory/processing issues, I think their natural inclination to ask "why?" can occasionally lead them astray, as they tend to come up with answers that ascribe issues 100% to "character" or "personality" or "family background" without considering the sensory.

Those sound like excellent suggestions, and I agree that overall raising the profile is necessary.
'if a teacher recognises and makes adjustments to deal with a sensory issue, will she be rewarded/recognised'

Rarely, and often not only the school but the parents can be negative.
Either the school thinks you are over-complicating things and adding to everyone else's burden on a daily basis,and possibly making things up, and some parents want everything possible implemented at all times and the classroom, school and community to prioritise their child's specific needs.
Or parents don't want to believe that there is something else on top of what they are already dealing with.
Sometimes I have difficulty distinguishing what is ASC and what is annoying teenager with my son, and sometimes other parents have the same difficulty.
Add to that the human dynamic of staff being yelled at or sworn at or blamed by parents, and it's understandable (not reasonable) that sometimes the problem is seen as "With a mother like that, who can wonder?'
And as a coda, a HV gets to see children 1:1 doesn't she? Rather than 1:30. So the screening and diagnosing would need time and organisation to put into place. Which is a good idea.

And perhaps 'working in partnership with parents' should be a timetabled, monitored, paid for and recognsied 'module' in the teachers week instead of an 'add on' at the end of the day when teachers are tired, there is no privacy and when parents feel guilty and hurried.

I mean true partnership where the teachers point out things the parents can be doing at home, not just parents ordering teachers about.

I think one of the root causes of parent negativity is lack of information, not because the teacher isn't trying but because it isn't a priority in the school day. Communication books etc are usually token gestures with no agreement of the type and quality of information to go in them.

Have you got the Sensory presentation we had from Uni? If not can send over if you contact me so you can pass it to school?

Angry - that book on visual aids by Linda Hodgson gives a short but excellent explanation as to why communication books don't work and "visual bridges" (ie going home with a photo of child doing activity A plus some writing if necessary) are better instead as they actually prompt communication rather than substituting for it.

I'm with claw3. Some of the staff who work with DS1 have educated themselves pretty well and some had actually encountered similar problems before with other children. Some definitely understand better than others, though.

goblinchild, yes, see your points. I will keep thinking about this. I suspect that this is what it was like with dyspraxia 40 years ago so it must be possible to change.

troublewithtalk, yes, take your point about communication passport. I'm hopeful that they have a reasonable understanding of his needs now, definitely they do on the language and the socialisation issues which are key. But I will do a written summary in September (he is moving on so fast that doing it now would be pointless).

I'm particularly pleased that they have spotted the need to simplify questions - I had been worried that his receptive language problems would be an invisible disability as he speaks reasonably well now, but when he has to answer questions, that really shows what level he is at (or isn't at, sadly!).

Angry, yes, agree that hurried end of day meetings aren't going to take you far. I think I get good service in this regard from DS2's school - this term, instead of a 5-minute parents' evening slot, I got half an hour mid morning with head, reception teacher and nursery manager and that is the level of engagement I needed to make it meaningful.