Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
16 hours one-to-one proposed - any good?(14 Posts)
So, we have just received a copy of DSS's proposed statement.
Obviously will have to re-draft lots of it as there's a lot of vague wording and pathetic amounts of SALT offered (and no OT). However, the main thing they have offered is 16 hours one-to-one per week.
DSS is autistic, academically able but working appallingly as he cannot focus, won't follow instructions and will only engage if he wants to (about 5% of the time - the rest of the time he's disruptive, doodles, scrawls nonsense, goes under the desk, licks other children etc).
So, just to get a sense of what's good and what's not, is 16 hours one-to-one a good outcome? Average? Is there such a thing as an average?
The proposed statement states that it will be for the headteacher to recruit the one-to-one (which seems good as HT has his head screwed on and is very aware of DSS's needs).
Any feedback very welcome. TIA.
Can you post the exact wording around the 1:1 provision?
Does it say that he will receive 1:1 exclusively for him or does it say that the school will be provided with funding for 16 hours of 1:1?
The latter gives the school the funding and no legal requirement for them to do anything more than paint the boys toilets.
Makes me laugh when they think that a child is only autistic for 16 hours of the day! Anyway, 16 hours is all of 3 hours a day. Speak to the school pronto to see if they are happy for him to be disrupting the class for the other 3 hours a day. On the other hand, sharing one to one time with other students can be very beneficial to children with communication difficulties and if they have that arrangement in mind at school it will be better for your son than having one person to himself all day.
As usual, it all depends on the school approach.
That is what my DS initially got offered.
I phoned up the officer responsible for his statement to ask what rational they had used for the 16 hours they would support him, ie, which hours did they not think he needed help.
Within about 5 minutes I had managed to get her to increase it to full time (including lunch hour and break times) support.
Be sure what you want before you phone. In your DSS's case I would suggest he needs full time 1:1 too. Who knows when they might have a meltdown or suddenly decide they won't / can't participate.
My ds is VHFA atm (this seems to be flexible though) and he got 25 hours.
I agree with chocoholic, my ds finds it hard to stay on task and even in a small group of 2-3 kids and my ds's TA taking the lesson, it was deemed that my ds. still needed 1:1. He has 30 hours support. Argue it on the fact that he needs someone to make sure he fully accesses the curriculum. You should get full-time support, as he needs constant prompts to stay on task.
Thank you. On train coming home now so will review the wording. I fear Starlight, that it's the latter but will double check.
My DS has 15 hours plus 5 hours lunchtime support. What it meant in practise was that the school (which didn't have a class TA in juniors at the time) funded a TA full time, but only specifically for my DS for the 15 + 5. He is HF ASD and, after infants, not particularly disruptive. He gets 1:1 for numeracy and literacy and she is still there in the afternoons, not specifically for him, but still able to head off meltdowns etc. TBH I don't think he gets 1:1 as in someone sitting with him constantly, like he did in reception and Y1, but as he has made loads of progress I haven't pushed it. His statement hours carry on to secondary, where he will probably need it.
If your DS will need someone constantly prompting him and keeping him focussed and from being disruptive, 16 hours won't do it. 16 hours will only do numeracy and literacy, he may as well not be there in the afternoon. If he may escape during lunchtimes he needs 1:1 for lunchtime as well.
Specific for your DS and quantified for your DS.
So, the wording us as follows: "The LA will provide additional resources to enable X to receive support from a learning support assistant for 16 hours per week...the learning support assistant and class teacher will work closely together to ensure a coherent approach and continuity"
That does seem like DSS will get 16 hrs one-to-one?
Dd2 (5 with HFA and severe langusge delay) gets 30hrs 1:1 on her statement and school fund any extra(to cover lunch and break times), we managed to get 30hrs without apeal, dd2 is accademicly ahead but has very poor communication skills, no sense of danger and puts things in her mouth so needs constant supervision.
DS has always had fulltime support, he is classic autism - massive language delay, no social interest in peers, few sensory issues and behaviour not too challenging, but IQ about normal. We were offered 50 or 75% but he stims constantly when not got support, so I pointed this out and asked how much of the day it was ok for him to be involved in stim and ignoring what the teacher and other children were doing and then they increased it to fulltime.
Agree also ask which bits of the day they feel he can manage to join in the activities fully independently and to give specific egs - it sounds like they have just plucked a figure out of the air.
We recently got our Proposed Statement for ds (4yo ASD, due to start reception in September). We also got 15 hours 1:1 support:
"X will require 15 hours per week support from a teaching assistant who will work under the direction of the class teacher/ SENCO to implement the following. This can be provided one-to-one or on a small group basis appropriate to the activity."
(Btw "the following" was a list of unspecified, unquantified support such as "access to enhanced levels of adult support", "Opportunities to learn targeted sets of vocabulary", "Encouragement to initiate social interactions verbally with his peer group to develop meaningful and co-operative play relationships")
We are challenging both parts 2 and 3 in details - part 2 does not describe him or his difficulties at all accurately, and the provision therefore proposed in part 3 is totally inadequate. We have gone through and highlighted every single instance where the provision is unspecified (eg "access to", "opportunities to" etc). Barely a paragraph remains of the proposed statement that we haven't changed!
We are also asking for ABA-trained LSA support (at a minimum - we ideally would like full-time ABA programme funded but it is highly unlikely we will get this). And are challenging the number of hours - though at this stage haven't been specific to them about how many we want, just that 15 hours is nowhere near enough.
Your proposed is better than ours at least in the fact that it specifies that the (supportive) Headteacher will recruit the 1:1. If you can get the Head on board and get yourself involved in the recruitment process so much the better.
We've got pathetic SaLT too (adds up to 15 hours per year). Because ds is verbal, I guess they think he doesn't need support with communication
Sorry to have hijacked your post with my own rant
Whereabouts in the country are you? Actually sounds quite a similar proposed statement to ours. I wonder if local authorities have a proforma for these <ponders>
'That does seem like DSS will get 16 hrs one-to-one?'
Not in my LA.
"--The LA will provide additional resources to enable-- X
to will receive 1:1 support from a learning support assistant for 16 [insert here] hours per week exclusively for him...the learning support assistant and class teacher will work closely together to ensure a coherent approach and continuity"
If that is what they meant all along then they won't mind writing it will they.
What the LA provides the school should be taken out of your ds statement as it detracts from the key information and is not your concern. Your concern is only what he will receive and that it meets his needs, NOT who is funding it.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.