to want to know what parents can do about the teaching crisis?!

[BrightRedSharpie]

I'm in Scotland, btw, but I know there is a similar problem in England.

My DD's school is really understaffed. The P1 teachers have both been off all week, which has caused absolute havoc. They have had different teachers for mornings and afternoons because there are also no supply teachers available. P7 had to be split up for a teacher to come and take the little ones.

2 classroom assistants are also off on maternity leave, which either isn't or can't be covered. That's left 3 classroom assistants for around 300 children.

I know the school are doing their best. I've written to my MP and MSP. Is there anything else a concerned parent can actually do?

Statemented children have their funding and support detailed in the statement, and it shouldn't be used for others, 1:1 staff shouldn't be used for cover or to support other children instead. It's illegal.
There are a lot more children in school with additional needs and no statement, and no hope of getting one.

lurked my child received enoughfunding for full time 1 to 1 teaching. It was claimed my child received this, when my child didn't.

At review it was claimed my child's needs included full time 1 to 1. In reality my child was placed in groups, not according to academic ability, where the other children had significant and often conflicting additional needs (I knew the other parents who nformed me their child received support from the TA assigned to my child in all the paperwork).

My child's progress was not fully acknowledged, for example my child's group did not do the same reading assessments as the rest of the class (my child was able to read and understand well before school entry).

Thankfully, there came a point when my child's progress could no longer be suppressed as the funding reform required more detailed provision mapping in order to apply for top up funding. It would have been only too clear the provision detailed in my child's Statement had not been used for my child.

Solitary I wonder whether as many children will identified as having additional needs, as previously, now the school has the responsibility to spend the initial 6k of this from their own (readjusted from previous funding formula) budgets.

In our LA, prior to the funding reform, they had reduced the AWPU because so many schools were applying for additional funding through the Statementing process. Effectively this reduced the level of additional need required to receive a Statement, in our area. Other LAs did not do this, to the cries of a 'post code lottery'. However the total funding schools received would not have necessarily varied that much, although the level of additional need regarded as severe enough for a Statement would have.

What will happen when all schools become academies?

Lurked

This thread shows how widespread the problem was:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/1862438-Teachers-do-not-adhere-to-Statemented-1-to-1-support-do-not-believe-in-sub-levels-make-APP-assessments-up-How-much-of-what-parents-are-told-by-schools-about-teaching-is-a-box-ticking-exercise

TheSolitary I don't know. Much is dependent on the individual school and the SMT. I don't think LAs were necessarily much better at protecting those with additional needs, or 'policing' individual schools' behaviour. Admissions could potentially be a worry but many LAs have a deal with the local academies which agrees admission criteria.

Oh gosh I don't know enough about your particular sitation to comment, but have often used the one to one support in class to support others either when I'm working with the child themselves or when I deem it appropriate for them to be working independently and they have been given a good start with the help of the TA.

Thats my decision to take though and I'd hope that as a parent you'd have supported that. It does depend on the nature of the need though.

Lurked I would have fully supported that, as my child was progressing with less support. What I could not support, was the fact this was not disclosed in the annual review paperwork or to me. It was difficult to uncover what exactly what was going on, too. The fact there was no acknowledgment of my child's progress was absolutely soul destroying. However, thankfully, not without extensive digging and some very carefully worded comments, this got resolved.

For others, whose children are floundering without the support they are entitled to, these circumstances could be catastrophic. The anxiety caused might mainly surface at home, as a 'safe place' too. So I would hope, if you were to adjust the support a child received, you would record what you were doing, discuss this with the parents, at the very least, and closely monitor the outcome.

I work in a school in mainland Britain and we have had a little success recruiting teachers from Northern Ireland, where there is actually a shortage of teaching vacancies, as opposed to a shortage of teachers.

This might be worth considering for those of you finding it hard to recruit?

I certainly wouldn't be discussing it with parents if the decision was made during a lesson that a child was progressing fine at that point and someone else could benefit from help. I would however have noted the progress made by the child.

Have you considered the fact that the school were keen to hang on to the resource? If they admitted that the child who was funded was making progress they might have lost the funding and this would have been detrimental to others. I'm sure they could have handled it better though.

About 1:1 TAs supporting other students, I would argue that sometimes it is appropriate. Last year in my year 11 group I had two 1:1 TAs who worked with two students; one who had complex processing issues, the other who had autism. The child with processing issues had his TA working with him at all times as he couldn't have accessed the work otherwise. The child with autism needed help breaking the work down but once he understood the task he liked to crack on with it himself and then get it checked by me or his TA. His TA would usually support another student at this time, obviously checking back on the student. I don't think this was detrimental to the student as the TA was just helping others in time that he really wasn't needed by the student (but obviously can understand you feel it was in your child's situation).

lurked of course I realise the school was hanging onto the resource. However this was distorting perceptions of my child's needs and effectively managing my child's progress, in that progress was not acknowledged. The funding my child received was individualised funding through a Statement. It was not there to benefit any other child, this was not the purpose of it, it was assigned to be used for my child only, in law. Effectively this meant my child was treated as a 'cash cow' to my child's detriment.

Letseatgrandma I think the reason these members of staff are getting away with these absences is that, because they're being covered by SEN staff and not supply teachers, it would not go down in returns for staffing at the end of the month. Our HT is too lenient understanding

Capsium I wish more parents of children with SN would make a fuss when their children are denied their teaching time due to staff covering classes. Until someone does, it's just going to continue.

The supply teacher problem started when the powers that be decided that for cover of less that (I think) 10 days, every supply teacher would be paid at the lowest point of the scale - even if they were on their maximum salary. Who in their right mind would want to do that?

As I said this could have been dealt with better.

If your child was genuinely progressing was it really to their detriment? Or was it the fact that it wasn't publically acknowledged that they were progressing? I can see how that would effect a childs confidence if it wasn't on reports.

I feel for schools doing things like this, there is obviously a desperate need for the resouces to be there but they will only get it if they tick a specific number of boxes and thats not great.

Past experiences have however brought me into contact with the parent who has a child who recieves direct funding and who will not allow any "sharing" of resources despite the fact that their child is getting the maximum benefit from it. You're not that person though.

Valancy for a system of individualised funding to work, any change in need (from that laid out in a Statement or ECHP) and following on from this provision, must be recorded and discussed with parents and the relevant stakeholders.

Statements and ECHPs are a legal document, to be adhered to, created through consultation with multiple professionals and the parents, to set out the provision a child is entitled to and provide funding for this purpose. A single teacher is not qualified to unilaterally overrule this advice and redirect resource assigned to an individual child, as they alone see fit - it is illegal.

However in practice in a classroom situation it may work for the child not get one to one all the time and that is down to the teacher's professional decision. It is the teacher's decision to decide on needs as and when, as long as the resource is provided to the child when they need it and it continues to have a positive impact.

I agree that your case needed better handling.

If your child was genuinely progressing was it really to their detriment? Or was it the fact that it wasn't publically acknowledged that they were progressing? I can see how that would effect a childs confidence if it wasn't on reports.

It could well have been to their detriment. There was certainly areas where their academic learning was not moved forward and stretched appropriately. It affected the groups my children was placed in and the work they were given. It could easily have been more than their confidence that was affected. However, I had bigger fish to fry, namely getting an accurate picture of what additional need my child possessed before they left primary.

Ultimately if every school lied and gave a distorted picture of additional need, you would end up with people leaving education being inappropriately labelled as 'vulnerable,' which can affect the degree of autonomy they are allowed in life.

What I ended up doing was a lot of teaching and encouraging at home. Thankfully my child has proved resilient.

However in practice in a classroom situation it may work for the child not get one to one all the time and that is down to the teacher's professional decision. It is the teacher's decision to decide on needs as and when, as long as the resource is provided to the child when they need it and it continues to have a positive impact.

You are on very shakey ground here, legally, lurked. A Statement or ECHP is a legal document, it details the provision a child is entitled to by law. It takes a whole host of professionals to compile for a reason. A teacher, simply is not qualified, to determine how psychological or physical conditions might affect a child's learning. This is why there should be careful documentation and consultation, regarding changes in provision, where there is a Statement or ECHP in place.

Yes, but 10 -15 minutes of the TA working with someone else who is struggling when the student who has the provision is clearly getting on by themselves quite well is fine.

I'm never on shaky ground, believe me, I also won't be told that I'm not qualified to make a decision such as the above in my classroom. Its not a drastic change for any length of time, and as previously said (depending on the need) it often greatly benefits students not to have the TA breathing down their neck all the time.

If you are in the habit of not recording the small progressions, lurked, bigger progressions can end up not being recorded too - as the mind refers to the last progression. Level of overall additional need is distorted, as small progression in needs, across many different areas, can culminate to a big change in overall level of additional need. Slippery slope, if this is not recorded. If there is a change in staff or school achieving consistency in approach could also be problematic. Added to this a detrimental impact of changes in provision might only manifest at home, so parents, at least, should be consulted.

This thread appears to have veered far away from its original purpose.

It's very interesting (although bang-head-off-a-wall at times) reading though.

Glad you are still here BrightRedSharpie.
Have you approached the governors in writing or by email?
Also have you contacted someone at your Local Authority?
These seem obvious steps so I am sorry if you have already mentioned this.
Your topic has certainly stirred up a few hornets.

Hmm, I think this might be why teachers are leaving in droves.

I don't mark books after every lesson, I formally assess two exam standard pieces of work each half term, and mark the homework that I set to ascertain progress.

Capsi I understand you've had a hard time but you don't need to start quoting the rule book at me, I know when changing the provision, very slightly for a short amount of time is appropriate.

I'm not saying you are one of those parents. But it is one of the reasons why people are leaving, lots of parents know the legal rights and insist on it being done to the letter often at the detriment of their own child!

An example would be the girl who wanted to apply to Oxford and Russle Group but didn't have the neccesary GCSE or A level results, we advised and advised her not to, she eventually did because her father insisted that it was her right to apply and that her extra curriculars would get her in. They didn't, she was rejected out right and was devesatated when none of her chosen Unis made her an offer.

As I said earlier, there;s a huge difference in understanding between the parent who can rightly say 'My Child' with every breath, and the teacher who has to juggle the equally important needs of 30+ children.