2. Inappropriate strategies for behaviour management...
The school staff repeatedly demonstrated that they (hadn't been told and) didn't know how best to handle Josie when she 'played up' in class time.
The TA(s) 'supporting' her would just keep on asking her to behave and, when she failed to co-operate, Mr Himmel, the Head of Year would be summoned to the scene. He would then 'negotiate' with Josie and usually remove her from the class and supervise her personally in his office - which Josie didn't mind at all, because she was getting what she wanted - attention! (Meanwhile, of course, the rest of Josie's classmates had to suffer the disruption to their learning.)
If a sanction was applied to Josie, it was generally a period of 'detention' - sometimes set for the following school day (which could mean a week end break in between the misbehaviour and the punishment) - far too long for Josie to 'associate' her behaviour with the penalty and learn from it.
Below are a couple of examples of what happened.
a) Confinement
The school considered that Josie was too dangerous to be allowed to go outside the 'Hive' at lunchtime - even accompanied by 1:1 by a Teaching Assistant!
The Hive is a 'Student Support area' at Ringwood school, consisting of a group of small rooms. The Hive is supervised by Staff and/or Teaching Assistants.
Whilst speaking to Josie on Sunday 28th January 2007, I learned that she wasn't being allowed to go outside the 'Hive' and play during lunch breaks.
Josie told me the school staff had explained to her that this was because we (Josie's parents) had insisted she doesn't go outside the Hive during lunchtimes.
The following day, I sent an email to Chris Edwards, the Headteacher at Ringwood school, informing her about what was happening and what the staff were saying to Josie. I pointed out that that we had never requested that Josie be kept in the 'Hive' throughout her lunch break and I confirmed that what we'd insisted on is Josie being supported with close adult supervision (1:1) during unstructured time.
I asked Miss Edwards to advise her staff accordingly and to ensure that Josie has the freedom to leave the 'Hive' during the break-time and lunch time, if she wanted to go outside.
Miss Edwards replied, saying:
"Josie is receiving 100% supervision in the ('Hive') support centre as you have requested at break and lunchtime."
"We are not able to provide 100% supervision outside as we do not have the staff available to do so."
"We are a mainstream school, not a special school, therefore we do not have the small group staff ratios that they have."
"We have already added additional support from school funds to provide more time, over and above that stated in the current SEN statement."
"We do not have the funds or staffing to provide any more time. I have to consider the needs of all of the children at the school."
I replied to the Headteacher by email sent on 1st February, saying that what neither Mrs O'Dwyer or I could understand was why Josie couldn't be accompanied outside the Hive at lunchtime by the person assigned to support her 1:1.
I referred to an earlier meeting at the school at which Mrs Newberry had stated to us (and Dorset LEA) that Josie "receives TA support from 8.45 am till 12.50 pm, and from 1.00 pm to 4.30 pm. This includes all lessons, breaktime, all but 10 minutes of lunchtime, plus an hour after school on three days a week."
Miss Edwards sent me a reply by email the next day, Friday 2nd February 2007, saying the school had been very good in trying to provide additional support and confirming that Josie had a TA with her during the school day, "from the minute she is dropped off at school until she is picked up at the end of the day."
She said "providing 1:1 support does not mean it is always 'exclusively' so for every minute of every day."
On Monday 5th February, I sent an email to Chris Edwards asking her to confirm whether or not a TA or other Responsible Person was being assigned to support Josie exclusively 1:1 during unstructured time (i.e. including lunchtime).
Miss Edwards replied by email on Wednesday, 7th February (8:09 PM) confirming that Josie received 1:1 support around the school, in the Hive and at lunch and break time.
I emailed Chris Edwards straight back thanking her for confirming that Josie does have an adult supporting her 1:1 (i.e. exclusively assigned to Josie) during the lunch time and at break time and asking her why the adult assigned to support Josie couldn't escort her if she wanted to go outside for a breath of fresh air and a change of scene instead of remaining in the Hive for the entire lunch hour, every day.
I also contacted Josie's Case Worker at Dorset LEA, Sarah Mitchell and informed her about what was going on at the school.
On 12th February, Chris Edwards responded by email, saying:
"Dear Mr O'Dwyer, in good faith, the school agreed at a previous meeting to support Josie with additional hours to try to help her to successfully integrate into mainstream education.
Her current statement does not provide full time support. You did say at an earlier meeting that you did not want Josie to be 'vulnerable or at risk' at any time during the school day, and in particular break and lunch times when problems with other children were most likely to occur. We have ensured that Josie has support at these times.
At break time she has a TA with her to help her eat her snack. At lunchtime she has a TA with her to help her eat her lunch and then to support her with her extension work and to help her socialise with other children which is an important part of her education.
The support we have put in place in the Hive at lunchtime is designed to meet Josie's needs.
In our professional judgement, this is the right place for her to be at lunchtime.
Josie's safety and that of the other children is my prime concern.
We are trying to be proactive in helping her to make progress in a mainstream school. She has made progress since joining us, however, she is a risk to others and will hit out at other children.
In the small managed environment of the Hive we can create the 'small school' feel which will help her.
I cannot guarantee her safety walking the site with a TA.
Even with another adult next to her she does sometimes hit out at other children.
We do have to complete a risk assessment in situations like this.
Our view is, she is as safe as it is possible to be in the Hive, she would be a risk to herself and others walking the site. I am therefore not willing to allow her to walk the site with a TA at lunchtime."
On 13th February, I emailed the Headteacher back, saying:
"Mrs O'Dwyer and I find it inconceivable that you (or anyone else who knows Josie) could really consider that if Josie was to go for a walk to get a breath of fresh air at lunch times, accompanied by a TA assigned exclusively to support her 1:1, it would present such a significantly high risk of danger (to herself and others) that it would outweigh the benefits to Josie of taking that walk and justify your decision to contain her in the 'Hive' throughout the entire lunch break!
We're more inclined to believe the first explanation you gave for restricting Josie to the Hive, (i.e. in the email you sent me on Tuesday, January 30, 2007) when you confessed: "We are not able to provide 100% supervision outside as we do not have the staff available to do so."
Please immediately review your decision and make the necessary arrangements to enable Josie to go outside the Hive if she wants to after she's had her lunch. (If you need more resources - contact Dorset LEA!)
If you don't, I will have no option but to refer the matter to the Board of School Governors as an official complaint."
I also emailed Sarah Mitchell at Dorset LEA the same day (i.e. 13th February) and pleaded for the LEA's immediate intervention to prevent a continuance of the unfair treatment Josie was being subjected to.
I said I was concerned because Miss Edwards had stated she could not guarantee Josie's safety walking the site with a TA and, since that would be the highest level of support the school could provide for Josie, it implied that the school could not guarantee Josie's safety at school at any time. It also suggested that the school was not a suitable place for Josie to be.
I said that I believed Miss Edwards had grossly (and unfairly and deliberately) overestimated the risk of danger entailed in Josie going outside the 'Hive' accompanied by TA for a walk and a breath of fresh air at lunchtime and I suggested that her motivation for doing so was to avoid needing to actually assign a TA exclusively to support Josie during that period.
I supported my assertion by quoting from the email Miss Edwards had sent to me on Tuesday, 30th January 2007, in which she'd admitted "We are not able to provide 100% supervision outside as we do not have the staff available to do so."
I said I was absolutely convinced that the school had not been assigning a TA specifically to support Josie 1:1 at lunchtimes and I asked if it would be possible for the LEA to demand to see the 'Schedule of support for Josie' that the school was operating (i.e. details of TA's names and the times of their assignment, together with confirmation that they're assigned exclusively to assist Josie.) I said I'd asked the school for the same several times - unsuccessfully!
Was this issue satisfactorily resolved?
No. It wasn't! Neither did the school ever furnish me with a copy of the Schedule of Support for Josie that I asked for!
But, anyway, thankfully, Josie only had to endure being confined inside the 'Hive' at lunchtimes for a few more weeks before she was transferred to a Special School.
b) An unhealthy way to discipline
At a meeting at Ringwood school on Wednesday 29th November 2006, Mrs Newberry (the SENCo), requested that we (Josie's parents) provide some cream to put on Josie's fingers to discourage her from picking her nose and wiping it on the Teaching Assistants' sleeves.
I said I'd never heard of any such cream.
Mrs Newberry said it was sold in most High Street Chemists - including Boots.
On Tuesday 5th December 2006, I spoke to the Pharmacist at Boots Chemist in Boscombe. He said they didn't sell any kind of cream that would be suitable to put on Josie's fingers to discourage her from picking her nose. He also said that (for medical reasons) it'd be unlikely that such a product existed.
I then sent Mrs Newberry an email the same day conveying what the Pharmacist had said and asking her for more details about the particular cream (product name, supplier's name etc.) that she'd referred to.
On Friday, 8th January, Mrs Newberry replied saying it was a product aimed at stopping children biting their nails, called 'Stop N Grow', but which was "also apparently very effective at stopping children picking their noses. It's because when they pick their noses, their fingers go very close to their mouths or even into their mouths as well, and it doesn't taste very nice, so they learn to stop doing it."
When I did a search on Google to find out more about 'Stop N Grow', I followed a link to a .pdf document produced by Mentholatum Australasia Pty Ltd who supply 'Stop N Grow', titled " Material Safety Data Sheet".
Page 4 of the document contains toxicological information about 'Stop N Grow'.
This is what it says:
No adverse health effects expected if the product is handled in accordance with this Safety Data Sheet and the product label.
Symptoms or effects that may arise if the product is mishandled and overexposure occurs are:
Inhalation: Vapour may be irritant to mucous membranes and respiratory tract. Inhalation of vapour can result in headaches, dizziness, fatigue and possible nausea. Inhalation of high concentrations can produce central nervous system depression, which can lead to loss of co-ordination, impaired judgement and, if exposure is prolonged, unconsciousness.
Skin contact: Contact with skin may result in irritation. Will have a degreasing action on the skin. Repeated or prolonged skin contact may lead to irritant contact dermatitis.
Eye contact: A moderate eye irritant.
Ingestion: Swallowing can result nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue and headache. Swallowing large amounts can result in central nervous system depression. If the victim is uncoordinated there is a greater likelihood of vomit entering the lungs and causing subsequent complications.
Long Term Effects: Evidence from animal tests and studies on exposed humans indicate that repeated or prolonged exposure to this chemical by inhalation or ingestion could result in liver damage.
To view the Material Safety Data Sheet : Click Here
After reading about the dangers, I emailed the info to Mrs Newberry and informed her that we would not be investing in 'Stop N Grow' as a way to discourage Josie from picking her nose.
I never heard another word on the subject!
Having read the above, could you have any confidence in Mrs Newberry's advice?
Stop Press: 18/06/2008
Incredibly, Mrs Freya Newberry (SENCo) won the Special Needs Teacher of the Year Award at the South of England Regional Final of the Teaching Awards 2008! The news shattered my impression of the efficacy of the Teaching Awards.