Here some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
A "suitable education"(90 Posts)
Does anyone know whether having a child taught solely by a TA at home constitutes a "suitable education" under the Education Act for a child out of school?
Usually, LAs provide tuition. Our LA wants to send a TA for the next 3 months while they "assess" DS further. He has a statement and complex needs but can't cope with school.
Apparently LA don't receive any funding for providing home tutors. It comes from school budget. Have you tried asking school to pay for your tutor?
This has all got so complicated.
LA still not put anything in place.
School still not agreed anything with LA.
DS still without provision.
Threatened judicial review by end of week if not address it so LA will doubtless now try and strong arm school. But we will still be considering question of TA.
Because we weren't concerned with suitability as much of the absence of any provision in the last few weeks, I had forgotten to check out the guidance.
It is here and I think it is very much suggestive of a teacher rather than TA being out in place to provide tuition
It tooks of an education equivalent to what the child would have at school, it talks of teachers and teaching.
This is statutory guidance which means it must be followed unless there is a very good reason not to follow it.
The LA are playing games with the school and us.
Anyone any experience of this?
Race I'm really sorry, I've realised my pm didn't go through. I've resent it.
Re cost of provision, if they name a school purely on any school must be better than an individualised package, rather than why this one can meet needs better, don't forget it's not only them that can argue it's an unnaceptable use of funds.
Claw I don’t think it’s becoming, it has been standard response in some places for many years. It generally works too. Only a few come through thoroughly battle scared but no case to answer.
I’m cautious of the repercussions of speaking out too much because I had years of what you went through, but because I'm visibly disabled and come from a disastrous childhood, I’m an easy target for having those things used to turn the spotlight away from my dc’s needs, onto the parent and paint a different picture of why a parent says their dc can't get an education in the school provided, or why the child’s needs are the way they are, rather than as a result of the condition they have. It's an old game.
It is very painful to be subjected to, but judges generally see through it if you can keep your head and your dignity and your child’s needs to the fore regardless and doesn't leave people looking like they genuinely had the child's needs at heart if they use this without honest grounds.
Why do SS allow themselves to be abused? Because they operate on ‘no smoke without fire’ theories, a desperate need to back cover should something later happen to any child ‘now known to them’, and rarely acknowledge to parents even when they want to*, that ‘professional colleagues’ at all sorts of levels, routinely abuse their positions to cover up situations, and that they are on the receiving end.
*I’m always reminded of the unspoken conspiracy of silence between adulterous men and the male population as a whole even when they don’t approve.
It's very difficult. I've seen both sides of this but the worse thing for genuine child protection is when an emergency SS/CP inquiry is called for as a silencing tactic, minuted, and then not followed up (or poorly investigated and swiftly closed) because SS know or suspect they're just being used as a stick to beat a parent with. I was of course grateful that they didn’t bother pursuing that one, but, how did they know that my accusers weren't finally right? I hadn’t finally snapped under the years of accusations and strain, or become too disabled to cope, when they didn’t respond?
That’s the dangerous situation ‘professionals’ abusing the CP system to cover up situations, mis management, and malpractise, or discredit parents for other reasons, helped create, and that’s the bigger disgrace IMO.
Yes I am not sure why these services allow themselves to be played like this. Disgraceful.
Seems like involving SS Race, is becoming standard response in some LA's. Im quite shocked that SS can be used like this and allow themselves to.
Anyhow I wish you the best of luck.
Thanks. That's really helpful. But this TA 'package' came in response to a pre-action protocol letter!
They are determined to do nothing unless forced so we will have to take JR.
There were no suitable local schools but one has said they may be able to assess now. Not sure if it is the right option for DS but the sum for this school makes tutor time seem like peanuts.
Its s19 EA96.
He is entitled to be taught by a teacher.
It looks like the LA is hiding behind the school keeping him on roll. The LA is probably trying to get the funding to pay for the tutor from the school. If all are saying that he should be taught at home that must be recognition that MS sch is not appropriate and he needs a different environment. Home Ed is is not an option here due to the circumstances in that you have not chosen it.
Check out the local independent schools and make noises to place the child there. That may change the current views.
On the face of it the child is having his right to education denied to him. The child would therefore be entitled to Legal Help/Aid to correct the failure of the LA to educate him. You would act as his litigation friend. Go through the Legal Aid Agency and seek advice from Maxwell Gillet for Judicial Review against the LA. Nothing like a JR to make the LA see some sense. Not perfect but helpful.
Hope this helps.
It was Race! then when they can find no fault with your parenting and you and your solicitor make complaints about SS and LA conduct and SS/LA realise what a balls up they made of the whole thing and that needs are actually with the child, not the parents. All of SS records 'disappear', including all assessments from their system and history is rewritten!
Yep, SS write to your GP and ask any problems with drink, drugs or mental illness. Any problems with your other kids, any other concerns and what for and when you have taken your child to the GP for previously!
You are then part of a CAF or TAC whatever they want to call it, because of SS involvement which involves 'information sharing' between parties!
They got hold of your medical records!! What?
I suppose blaming or trying to find fault with the parents (ie getting your hands on their medical records and investigating their life style/home environment by involving ss), is a whole lot cheaper than paying for provision.
I was one of the lucky ones, I have never suffered with any mental illness or depression. My older children all attended school and college. My house is well maintained. Just some examples of the info the LA get their hands on by involving SS and then run with.
Mum has suffered with depression, other kids school attendance is a bit patchy (for whatever reason) and house could do with a bit more maintenance and you are in shit. Bang goes indie SS school and mum needs some tablets and parenting classes. Just another LA dirty trick.
claw that is dreadful. These people sicken me, they really do.
No one can get away with saying this is just about the money. If it is, why vilify parents?
You are right Race, if I had have paid for a HT, then SS probably couldn't have said that I was taking no steps to prioritise ds's education! I had asked LA to provide tutor, I had asked school to send home work and he had been signed off from school by my GP and I had applied for SA!
LA had refused SA and refused HT. Yet I was the one being reported to SS for not prioritising his education!
Strange what people in positions of power regard as 'prioritising education'. They make me sick!
Just chipping in - my solicitor advised us to recoup the costs of the private GCSE courses we bought for him from the LA. Was probably part of the eventual settlement.
If you pay, you are not relieving them of their legal duties.
In fact, quite the opposite as it demonstrates that they are not fulfilling their legal duties because if they were, you wouldn't have to pay!
What you are doing is ensuring your child gets some education in the face of their failure rather than none at all.
But it is wrong that anyone has to do it.
Well the TA would have been from receiving indi SS school, so LA couldn't really force them to play ball. So it would seem that most schools wouldn't regard TA's as 'suitable', regardless of what LA think.
No I haven't read that, ds is now attending indi ss school, after receiving 6 months worth of HT, 5 hours per week. But ds was previously without education for 4 months prior to that.
My solicitor at the time advised me against paying for HT myself and relieving the LA of their duties.
My asking LA to fulfil their duties resulted in them reporting me to SS! Again just another delay tactic.
Well it is Monday - the beginning of another week - and there is still no education in place for the foreseeable future - suitable or not!
It is outrageous that LAs feel so comfortable lying. But have you ever read the North Tyneside judgment? It is very short and the judges lay into the LA barrister for dragging things out when he's got no case.
These are Court of Appeal judges basically saying the barrister is not fulfilling his duty to the court and is practically pretending there is a case to answer in the hope that "something comes up".
Worth a read to demonstrate in some courts (as opposed to tribunals), judges take such things seriously.
Yep, insurance was the reason I was given for TA not being able to come home to home tutor.
Join the discussion
Please login first.