Parents and staff at a North London primary school have raised serious concerns over the treatment of pupils with special educational needs (SEN), alleging that vulnerable children are being bullied, unfairly punished and routinely labelled as “naughty”. Speaking to MyLondon, families and insiders claim that instead of receiving tailored support, some SEN pupils are being excluded from classrooms, subjected to harsh disciplinary measures and blamed for behaviour linked to their additional needs.
The allegations, which the school strongly denies, shine a spotlight on wider questions about how well mainstream schools are equipped to support children with complex needs under mounting budget and staffing pressures. They also come amid growing national concern that formal policies on inclusion are not always reflected in day‑to‑day practice,leaving some of the capital’s most vulnerable pupils feeling isolated,stigmatised and misunderstood.This investigation examines the claims, the school’s response and what the row reveals about the challenges of delivering truly inclusive education in London today.
Systematic failures in supporting SEN pupils at North London school
Parents and staff allege that beneath the school’s polished exterior lies a pattern of procedural neglect, where legal duties towards children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) are treated as optional rather than essential. Concerns describe Individual Education Plans left incomplete for months, referrals to external specialists delayed until crises peak, and behaviour policies applied with little or no reasonable adjustment. Several families claim they only discovered their child’s entitlement to support after self-reliant assessments, rather than through proactive school guidance.Insiders say that SEN reviews, when they happen at all, can last “less than ten minutes”, with little meaningful input from parents or the pupils themselves.
According to those speaking out,this culture of minimal compliance filters down into everyday classroom practice,where the absence of structured support contributes to escalating behaviour and,ultimately,punitive responses. Staff members describe being “left to cope” with complex needs without training,specialist tools or consistent leadership. Key failings repeatedly cited include:
- Inconsistent use of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) – targets not embedded into lessons.
- Lack of early intervention – support is triggered only after multiple exclusions or complaints.
- Insufficient staff training – teachers rely on removal from class rather than tailored strategies.
- Poor communication with families – parents report being “informed” rather than genuinely consulted.
| Area of Concern | Reported Impact on Pupils |
|---|---|
| Delayed assessments | Prolonged anxiety and academic decline |
| Rigid behaviour policies | Increased detentions, internal exclusions |
| Limited classroom support | Withdrawal from learning, school refusal |
| Minimal parental input | Erosion of trust and repeated complaints |
Accounts from parents and staff alleging bullying punishment and discrimination
Several families describe a pattern in which children with diagnosed learning needs were allegedly singled out for harsh treatment when they struggled to cope in class. Parents claim that instead of receiving tailored support plans, their children were repeatedly sent out of lessons, left unsupervised in corridors, or made to sit at the back of the room as a form of public shaming. One mother said her son, who has autism, was “treated like a troublemaker from day one”, while another reported that staff told her daughter she was “just being difficult” when she experienced sensory overload. Staff members who spoke to MyLondon on condition of anonymity say they raised concerns internally about these practices, but felt that complaints were downplayed or dismissed.
- Parents report: children repeatedly removed from class instead of supported
- Staff allege: concerns about SEN practices were ignored by senior leaders
- Pupils say: they were called “naughty” or “lazy” when struggling to follow instructions
- Impact cited: rising anxiety, school refusal, and loss of trust in adults
| Alleged Practice | Effect on Pupils |
|---|---|
| Repeated isolation from lessons | Increased anxiety and missed learning |
| Using behaviour charts as penalties | Public labelling as “naughty” |
| Refusal to adapt classroom tasks | Frustration and emotional outbursts |
| Ignoring professional SEN advice | Parents feel sidelined and powerless |
Impact of negative labelling on vulnerable children’s wellbeing and learning
Children with special educational needs often absorb the words used about them as quiet, internal truths. When they are repeatedly described as “naughty”, “disruptive” or “difficult”, those labels can harden into identity, fuelling anxiety, low self-esteem and withdrawal from school life. In classrooms, this can look like a pupil shutting down, refusing to engage or lashing out in frustration – behaviours that are then cited as further proof of the original label.The result is a cycle in which misunderstanding replaces support, and emotional distress is mistaken for wilful defiance rather than a call for help.
These patterns have direct consequences for learning. Once a child is seen as a problem to be managed rather than a learner to be supported,expectations quietly shrink,opportunities are reduced and the curriculum can become a series of missed chances. Staff may rely more on sanctions than adjustments, overlooking reasonable changes that could unlock progress. In many cases, parents say this plays out in everyday moments:
- Support is replaced by frequent removal from lessons.
- Communication focuses on behaviour slips rather than progress.
- Peer relationships suffer as classmates mirror adult language.
- Trust in the school erodes for both families and pupils.
| Label used | Child’s likely feeling | Impact in class |
|---|---|---|
| “Naughty” | Shame, confusion | Silence or angry outbursts |
| “Attention-seeking” | Rejection | Escalating behaviour to be noticed |
| “Lazy” | Hopelessness | Giving up on tasks early |
Evidence based reforms to safeguarding training and inclusive behaviour policies
Parents and staff say the school’s response must move beyond ad‑hoc workshops and one‑off assemblies to a rigorous overhaul grounded in research. That means mandatory, recurrent training on neurodiversity and trauma‑informed practice for every adult on site – from lunchtime supervisors to senior leaders – with content co‑designed by specialists and families of pupils with SEND. Evidence from national safeguarding reviews shows that bias and misinterpretation thrive where staff lack confidence,so training should focus on recognising communication differences,de‑escalation strategies and how sensory overload can be mistaken for “defiance”. To be credible, this cannot be a tick‑box exercise: leaders need to track impact through behaviour data, pupil voice and independent audits, and publish the findings to the school community.
Alongside training,behaviour policies must be rewritten to prioritise dignity and inclusion over zero‑tolerance rhetoric. Clear, accessible guidelines should replace vague “naughtiness” labels with specific descriptors of need and agreed adjustments, ensuring that responses are consistent and fair. Key elements could include:
- Personalised regulation plans for pupils with SEND, agreed with families and reviewed termly.
- Automatic safeguarding reviews after repeated sanctions or use of isolation rooms.
- Restorative approaches that repair relationships rather than escalate punishment.
- Regular reporting to governors on exclusions, restraints and complaints involving SEND pupils.
| Measure | What changes | Impact on SEN pupils |
|---|---|---|
| Staff training | Focus on neurodiversity & trauma | Fewer misread behaviours |
| Behaviour policy | From punitive to restorative | Reduced exclusions |
| Data monitoring | Termly review by governors | Greater accountability |
The Way Forward
As investigations continue, parents and staff say they are still waiting for meaningful change – not just new policies on paper, but a cultural shift in how vulnerable pupils are understood and supported.
The school insists it is working to address concerns and improve provision for children with special educational needs. Yet for the families who say their children have already been harmed, questions remain over accountability, openness and whether complaints were acted upon swiftly enough.With local authorities under pressure to ensure legal duties towards SEN pupils are met, the case in North London highlights a wider national debate about how schools manage behaviour, allocate resources and balance inclusion with rising demands on staff.
For now, parents and campaigners say they will continue to push for an independent review, and for stronger safeguards to prevent any child with additional needs from being written off as merely “naughty” again.
