School suspension of a 5y child with ASD

5 year old violence against staff.... sounds like their staff are incapable and weak.

a 5 year old has very little capacity for actual dangerous violence that to a adult would be even less than play sparring.

i allowed my nephew to let rip and hit me as hard and fast as he can in my chest when he was around 14 or something. didnt really hurt. the teacher is supposed to adapt to the child and be able to offer a outlet for them, control them, in taking their hits and it being nothing which it should be nothing they can control that and direct that energy to positive use. the teachers these days are just incompetent. i always said they should stop using terms like learning disability and instead think of whether the teachers have a teaching disability instead. not everyone can teach. most teachers are not there to teach but to claim a wage.

Caelus said:

5 year old violence against staff.... sounds like their staff are incapable and weak.

You are missing the point - any violence in the workplace is completely unacceptable. You were inviting violence from your nephew in a play environment, not uninvited rage in what should be a safe setting.

Not only is the teachers wellbeing threatened (chairs may be thrown, scissors used etc) but the trauma for some is at a very different level to what you experience.

It also opens the doors for others to start to see violence as normalised which is deeply unhealthy.

If the kid carrys on doing it through age 10 or 15 - where are you going to draw the line? Once the kid can break a bone or take out an eye? The answer has to be zero tolerance.

I get where you are coming from, but having suffered violence in the workplace I agree that no matter who is perpetrating it, it cannot be tolerated.

Caelus said:

5 year old violence against staff.... sounds like their staff are incapable and weak.

You are missing the point - any violence in the workplace is completely unacceptable. You were inviting violence from your nephew in a play environment, not uninvited rage in what should be a safe setting.

Not only is the teachers wellbeing threatened (chairs may be thrown, scissors used etc) but the trauma for some is at a very different level to what you experience.

It also opens the doors for others to start to see violence as normalised which is deeply unhealthy.

If the kid carrys on doing it through age 10 or 15 - where are you going to draw the line? Once the kid can break a bone or take out an eye? The answer has to be zero tolerance.

I get where you are coming from, but having suffered violence in the workplace I agree that no matter who is perpetrating it, it cannot be tolerated.

Iain  Caelus There are training programmes for staff that deal with de-esclation, containment, and finally safe handling (restraint). Staff should be trained in TEACHH and how to avoid or limit violence. There is (English) caselaw where a TA was injured by a child, and the school was found at fault for not training her in safety measures.  Meltdowns are a predictable hazard where you have ASD kids, should be part of the risk assessment, and staff training should be part of the risk mitigatiion. 

Zero tolerance policies are almost cetainly illegal. The Head Teachers and governors considering exclusion are required to act "quasi-judicially" and to consider all the circumstances, including allowing the child or parents to express their views. The question is what caused the meltdown?  Was it preventable? If the child does not have an EHCP, are there sufficient, knowledgable staff to support them and a suitable environment? (Probbly not.)

The parent says that " the school has has agreed that proper strategies are not yet developed specifically for my son."   There is your answer - Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, s2a employer's duty to have safe working practices, and 2c to provide training. s7a  is the employee's duty " to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;... " this means that staff should insist on having the necessary training, safe systems of work etc. before blaming the child. "Where reasonably practicable" is interpreted differently when it comes to HASAWA - the court is less likely to accept arguments about budgets or delays in getting EHCPs, CAMHS appointments etc.

Remember that staff may also find theselves in serious trouble if a child is injured by unreasonable force. "Self defence" by an adult, depending on size, fitness etc. against a five-year-old can be problematic. If the staff member has not been trained to use the proper procedures and the child is injured, the staff member could face a child protection investigation, suspension, disciplinary proceedings or even dismissal.

Sometimes the safe action is to remove the other children, secure any sharp objects etc., call for back up from a senior leader, then stand back and monitor from a safe distance. Sometimes the adults have an approach that escalates the conflict. They don't want to "lose face" in a fight with a five-year-old. They see it as power issue, a matter of "maintaining discipline" when in fact that autistic kid is not deliberately breaking the rules ... they are acting out distress, not disrespect or hostility.

As a governor who has been involved in hearing both exclusion appeals and "unreasonable force" disciplinary cases against staff in similar circumstances, it is not easy. The statutory guidance is complicated and often conflicting.

I always advise parents to get advice, from SEN specialists such as IPSEA, the NAS helpline, or a specialised education lawyer.

[This is not legal advice, usual disclaimers apply.]

generally youd draw the line right away with discipline, but our society has ruined that and deleted discipline from the world, and so we got chav culture didnt we? lol