ASD child reduced timetable primary school

Go and talk to the school about increasing the timetable quicker of moving to full days.

I accepted that but now he’s in reception it’s still the same. I’ve been told they can legally do this until their 5th birthday

@orangeleopard this isn’t true. You have the right to send DS full time now unless the school formally suspends/permanently excludes (which you would be able to challenge). See the section of admissions code I quoted in a pp.

My son is the exact same. The school are awful and I’m regretting putting him in the school he’s in. He has additional needs (99% likely to be autism and adhd, but waiting for a diagnosis). He attended the nursery and only was able to do half days as he couldn’t manage full - I accepted that but now he’s in reception it’s still the same. I’ve been told they can legally do this until their 5th birthday before outside services require proof from the school as to why they’re doing it. My son’s birthday is in a couple of months, so I’m hoping it’ll motivate them in comparison to a child who’s birthday is not until the end of the year. But yeah, he’s the one child who’s only doing half days in reception, and the one child that they don’t seem to want to have him in school. The school are awful and dragging their feet with sending off for funding despite knowing his needs for over a year. He keeps attacking himself and others and trying to escape (among other meltdowns etc) and the school see him as a burden rather than managing ways to ‘cope’ with him. I’m really frustrated as he’s got to go in full time eventually and they say he can’t manage it - but it’s a legal requirement so what actually is getting done? I have the family support agency on my side fighting for my son too, but even then they’re still not giving him the support he deserves

Unlawful, informal exclusions are always unlawful.

Objecting to the EHCP includes when there is not sufficient funding to deliver the SEP detailed, specified and quantified.

The school CAN say they will have the child there for the 1:1 funded hours, but they will not have him there more than that.

This is objecting to the EHCP. The school would be objecting to being named when the EHCP does not include sufficient provision (in their opinion).

If this was not the case, then any child with an EHCP could go to ANY school or college they/their parents wanted, and the school would have to adapt to them, regardless of what those adaptions were.

OP’s situation is a different situation because the school is already named. The school must admit (they have) and cannot unlawfully informally exclude. However, LAs and SENDIST do not need the school’s agreement in order to be named unless the school is wholly independent. They can be named even if they object.

If what you're saying right, then suppose my child has an EHCP for PMLD - he needs access to a physio/hydro/sensory room/changing room with shower. From what you are saying the school would either have to PROOVE he didn't need any of those things, or have to build them, so he could attend.

I am saying if the EHCP for a child with PMLD named a MS, the MS would still have to admit and cannot unlawfully exclude.

It is irrelevant if the school think detailed, specified and quantified provision isn’t required. It must be provided and can be enforced. The school/LA not providing it leaves the LA and school open to legal action.

They are NOT objecting to the EHCP though, they are objecting to being asked to provide what is on it without enough resources to do so. It is ONLY unlawful if they are saying they can meet the child's when they can, if they can prove they can't then they CAN refuse to have the child, or say they will only have them with certain help to do so. If this was not the case, then any child with an EHCP could go to ANY school or college they/their parents wanted, and the school would have to adapt to them, regardless of what those adaptions were.

If what you're saying right, then suppose my child has an EHCP for PMLD - he needs access to a physio/hydro/sensory room/changing room with shower. From what you are saying the school would either have to PROOVE he didn't need any of those things, or have to build them, so he could attend.

@stichguru the school cannot informally exclude. That is unlawful.

The school CAN say they will have the child there for the 1:1 funded hours, but they will not have him there more than that.

This would be an unlawful informal exclusion.

The school could look at judicial review proceedings if they object to the EHCP, but they cannot unlawfully, informally exclude while ever they are named in I.

They absolutely can. The EHCP will detail the child's needs and allocate a certain amount of special local authority funding to the school specifically to meet those needs. This money can ONLY be used to meet the child's needs, as set out in the EHCP.

However, the school can still refuse to meet the child's needs, if they can demonstrate that the funding, or other provision granted by the LA through the EHCP is not sufficient to enable them to meet the child's needs.

For example:

1. The school claims that the child needed a full time 1:1 assistant.
2. The panel agrees and funds a full time 1:1 assistant.
3. The school cannot say that actually they need another general reception TA so they will only accept this child part-time to free up money for that.

However if

1. The school claims that the child needed a full time 1:1 assistant.
2. The panel decides that the child doesn't need 1:1 all the time and only funds them for some lessons.

The school CAN say they will have the child there for the 1:1 funded hours, but they will not have him there more than that.

Now LA could come back and say well yes in the 1:1 funded hours you can meet X need by doing A, but actually B would meet X need too, and you could do B without him having 1:1, so you CAN have him all the time. The school would then have to either accept that, and use B outside the funded hours, or they could contest it and put together argument about how B wasn't possible OR wouldn't meet the child's needs.

Working in education doesn’t always mean someone understands SEN law, sadly. Many schools, LAs and staff think nothing of acting unlawfully either wilfully or through ignorance of the law. Just look at some of the examples on this thread where posters think it is acceptable for legally mandated provision to not be provided and for schools to unlawfully, informally exclude.

Tell me you don't work in education, without telling me you don't work in education.

the reseach about 1-1 not being best practise is misrepresented so as not to provide 1-1 to children who really need it to save costs. Yes in certain circumstances children can perform better without a 1-1 as 1-1 doesn’t promote independence, but if a child needs 1-1 or the alternative is only going to school an hour an day then they aren’t really the children from the research that are going to do better without a 1-1 as the real life alternative is not being in school at all so no independence is promoted as they aren’t even there.

its the same shite as the arguement that is also regularly given by la’s to force children who need specialist into mainstream. Research says children in mainstream performs better than children in specialist. Well of course they do as most of the children who can attend mainstream don’t have Sen for a start and the ones thst do have Sen tend to be the sort that can actually attend mainstream and the school can manage them/ they can manage the school. If the child and manage in mainstream they aren’t going to do better in mainstream no matter what the la says research says, same with 1-1.

Here's some helpful links for you op

https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/education-for-children-out-of-school/#:~:text=All%20students%20of%20compulsory%20school%20age%20have%20the,be%20clear%20when%20the%20part-time%20timetable%20will%20end.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66bf300da44f1c4c23e5bd1b/Workingtogetherrtoimproveeschoolattendancee-Augustt2024.pdf pg 25

www.ipsea.org.uk/FAQs/part-time-timetable

This happened to my friend last year, her DD started and was on reduced timetable until the March. It increased gradually and was really hard as she worked full time

I'm sorry this happened. The Local Authority should have been ensuring suitable full time education was in place or as much as your dd could manage via alternative provisions/learning.

It's not unusual for them to do nothing until legally forced. Schools blindly follow anything local authorities tell them even when it's unlawful (I had a school tell me recently they couldn't put alternative provision in place until we had medical evidence. This is what the LAs educational welfare officer had told them but it's untrue and unlawful).

@MoreIcedLattePlease

Firstly, everything @EndlessLight said 👏

What other parents have fought for and lost is not OPs responsibility.

It doesn't take years to get specialist. We got one in less than a year, we used the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to do so. Many parents do. We did this twice. You just need to be clued up on your child's legal rights and enforce them.

Lots of send CYP are verbal and academic, as are mine, this is irrelevant as it's literally zero indication of a child's actual Sen needs.

Clearly school don't think he can cope as they've got him on a part time timetable.

Why and how would a well behaved Sen child get excluded? Exclusions can only be for behaviour and then all possible support and RAs would need to be in place otherwise that could also be deemed unlawful and discriminatory.

There are no loopholes to get out of following the law.

If 1:1 is detailed, specified and quantified in F it can be enforced. Any school sharing that 1:1 support is leaving themselves and the LA open to legal action. It isn’t for the school to decide the SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F is not provided.

LAs and some schools like to misrepresent the research including Sharples et al., 2015 that government guidance is based on. A well trained TA correctly deployed does not lead to dependency. Michael Charles, a well regarded SEN solicitor, wrote an excellent piece and how LAs like to misrepresent the research on this.

EHCPs can be fully funded. The LA is ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision is provided and that including funding it at an appropriate level.

Yes school can suspend and permanently exclude, but not based on the information in the OP’s posts. And a formal suspension instead of an unlawful, informal exclusion will a) force the school to follow due process, b) provide the OP with evidence of unmet needs to support her pursuing additional SEP/an alternative placement, c) limit the number of days the school can suspend for, d) allow the OP to challenge any suspension, and e) ensure DS receives alternative education for longer suspensions once CSA.

No, they don't. They know the child at home: staff know the child at school. Believe me, they are two VERY different things.

I mean this in the kindest way as both a parent of a child with an EHCP and a teacher: there is NO money in schools. Your son will always have to share his 1:1 with other children in the class, primarily because it's actually not best practice to provide 1:1 support, the research is clear on this. You also have no idea how those parents have fought for their children and potentially lost.

Unless you fight even harder for specialist, this is the reality you are going to have throughout school. If you truly think that's not right for your DS, start making noise about special now. Because it will take you years to get there if he is verbal and academically able to 'cope' in mainstream.

I'd also bear in mind that working full time with a child who has significant SEND needs in mainstream school is nigh on impossible. You might need a contingency.

Children with EHCPs can still be excluded both fixed term and permanently, so the 'school have to do x' doesn't work I'm afraid. Yes, they do have to follow the SEN code of practice, and they do have to follow procedures. But they know the loopholes and they will use them if they think they want/need to.
Likewise "the school need to say they can't meet needs" is shite. They DO say this. Frequently. LEAs then force it, and this is what happens. There isn't the staff out there to meet as much need as there is. There aren't enough specialist spaces to meet the need. This the real reason attendance is poor and home education on the rise. The system is broken - for all involved.

The amount of people on this thread that say that op child would be better off in specialist although it’s some sort of choice you get is laughable, clearly people who are lucky enough never to have dealt with the Sen system ever. For most children there is no choice, it is mainstream even if parent wants specialist.

If you read the thread, OP’s DS has an EHCP.

Look at the section of the admissions code I quoted in a pp. The school cannot refuse to allow OP’s DS to attend full time. Until OP’s DS is CSA, it is her decision whether he attends part time or not. It is not the school’s decision.

But if they can’t meet his needs they need to say they can’t meet his needs, not take the funding and have him in 2 hours a day for the next 7 years.

The half days will last until the school feel that your child will cope well with full days in their setting with the support they can offer. This could be a week or two, a few months, a year, some years.

In regards to those saying the school is breaking the law. The LAW is that the Local Authority, have to provide education for the child which meets their needs. If one school cannot meet those needs, then it is the LA's job to find an alternatives placement for the child. The LA would question WHY, that school is not able to meet the child's needs, and that could have several outcomes:

• The LA could determine that actually the school could try something different and then would be able to meet the child and would get them to do that.
• The LA could determine that the school could meet the needs of the child with support from the LA, and then the child could be subject to a Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) which would mean that the LA would support the school in meeting the child's needs.
• The LA could set up the EHCP with a view to sending the child to specialist provision in the area.

In terms of whether the half days are reasonable, if at the moment, the only option is this school, and this is the only way they can cope with his needs, then YES they absolutely are reasonable. Longer term, if this school will only offer half days, the LA needs to be involved with the process above.

Agreeing with you both. There's a limit to what the school can do but it sounds like they're trying to phase him in and gradually build his tolerance. If you throw him in full time he's more likely to crash out completely.

Not what you want to hear OP, but my dd was in school FT until year 9, then spiralled and only spent 45 minutes a day in school until she left in year 13. I had to give up work completely. I strongly disagree with those saying you could just drop him off and let them deal with him. If he's not happy/settled then everyone will suffer, especially him.

The school said he’s doing well eg sitting for carpet time. BUT in the 2/2.5 hrs he is currently attending he regularly struggles and has to be taken out of class by his 1:1. Please consider how much this could spiral if he was at school a full 6 hrs. He is very young and it could simply be too much for him. He won’t gain anything from being in school longer if much of that time is spent away from his peers/ teacher with the 1:1 support having to calm him down. There is a danger he will start to resent this and his behaviour could escalate and he won’t enjoy being there.

i feel for you, being in the position that work is untenable and placing pressure on the family financially. It is easier (on the child) to build up time positively in new environment than rush them and have negative associations with school as this will make full time harder in the future. A couple of weeks isn’t long, it sounds like the school have a plan they are working towards. Keep regular, frank open dialogue going with them but I think give it a little longer to see if it’s working.

You can always spot the school staff on these threads. Peddling unlawful nonsense, making excuses and saying school know best. The school have known the child for two/three weeks. I'm pretty sure parents know them better.