SEN 1-1 support in school

[lettshaveaniicecupoftea]

Posting for traffic.

My daughter is autistic and in reception. She has a diagnosis and an EHCP.

She currently has a keyworker and a lot of 1-1 interventions and targets but doesn't have an allocated 1-1 person. She has a keyworker who seems to support a small group of children with varying additonal needs.

She is due an ehcp review early 2022 to start preparing her for year 1 and make any necessary changes to her plan in time for then.

I'm just curious to know what happens if a child needs their own 1-1 TA. Is this something the school has to agree to? Can I stipulate this needs to happen? Is it upto the local authority? Does it need to be specifically written into the plan to make it happen?

She needs a lot of personal care. She's still in pull ups (not incontinent at all - but has a fear of using the toilet). Needs support at lunch time as she's uneasy about eating and needs gentle encouragement. She would find it hard on a typical classroom set up of being seated most of the day with one teacher and a TA, she would definitely need more close attention to carry out tasks and understand the work.

She is showing lots of progress with actual learning after the nursery year of not much progress at all. I am confident she will be fine in mainstream with additional support.

These days (and since 2014) all support should be tied to outcomes. "Full time 1:1" isn't an outcome in itself. If the outcomes are such that full time 1:1 would be needed to achieve them, then that is what must be provided.

The Blatchford review prompted this change because it demonstrated that higher TA hours led to lower attainment, even where youngsters were matched in other ways. They hypothesised that this was because the teacher subconsciously steps back from interacting directly with the child who misses out on teaching time, which is substituted for TA time. Many TAs are great but they aren't teachers. Too much time was spent by TAs helping children complete work they couldn't properly access - teacher differentiation reduced and youngsters spent more time out of class.

So now all TA time must be linked to particular intended outcomes and in support of them (eg, to help a child improve their reading age by 14 months or whatever) rather than the TA support being an end in itself.

DD is in yr3 and has just moved to specialist school from mainstream. While in mainstream, she had full-time 1-1 support, as did quite a few other children in her year. There was no suggestion that they shouldn’t be in mainstream, so please don’t let anyone nudge you towards special school if you don’t feel it’s right for your child. (My DD’s move out of mainstream was not related to lack of support.)

As PPs have said, 1-1 needs to be specified in her EHCP and the number of hours quantified. LAs sometimes try to get away without including support over lunch or breaktimes, so keep an eye out… Gather as many reports as you can from school and professionals that show the level of support she needs in all areas. It’s in school’s interest to get her the support she needs as it comes with funding.

Thanks everyone, so helpful

Doubleraspberry who is providing the 1:1 makes a huge difference. It is possible to get the 1:1’s experience, training and qualifications specified in section F.

Some schools who claim to know DC well don’t actually. Some claim DC are “fine” in school when the DC is anything but. Telling parents their DC doesn’t need a diagnosis/doesn’t need an EHCP/won’t get an EHCP/won’t get 1:1 or SS when that isn’t the case. The child is diagnosed or the parent applies for an ECHNA or successfully pursues 1:1 or SS.

Parents should be encouraged to appeal when the LA refuse to assess, refuse to issue or the parent disagrees with the provision or placement. The majority of appeals to SENDIST are upheld.

@Sockpile

You will need evidence and will probably have to pay for a private Ed Psych report stating this. It’s very unlikely that any professional commissioned by your LA will write reports specifying 1-1 even if there is a need.

Utter nonsense, absolutely not true.

@Sockpile that's rubbish!!

You will need evidence and will probably have to pay for a private Ed Psych report stating this. It’s very unlikely that any professional commissioned by your LA will write reports specifying 1-1 even if there is a need.

Can you back this scaremongering up with any evidence?

My LA don’t accept private Ed psych reports.

@Meandmini3

My LA don’t accept private Ed psych reports.

Is that allowed?

Ds ehcp was written from a private Ed psychologist report, because the LA realised the day before deadline they hadn’t arranged one! That LA mess up did work very much in our favour because the private report was fantastic

Meandmini3 that is unlawful.

In Sockpile’s defence, many parents are forced to appeal and commission independent assessments in order to secure 1:1 because the LA refuse to specify and quantify 1:1 in section F. Many LA reports are vague and woolly, and as provision in section F is taken from the reports if the reports are vague and woolly the EHCP is too. For example, even when they do state 1:1 it is e.g. “X would benefit from access to 1:1” or “X requires 20 hours of 1:1 or equivalent”. Both mean your child may not receive any 1:1 and you can not enforce the EHCP. A vague and woolly section F means the EHCP is worthless.

"X requires 20 hours of 1:1 or equivalent" is NOT an outcome and should not be in an EP report.
The only way it could be would be for the EP to list outcomes and then state "20 hours of 1:1 in order to meet these outcomes".

Teeny my point was many LA EP reports have such woolly and vague wording, which is why so many parents are forced to appeal and seek independent assessments. EP reports should outline needs, provision to meet those needs and the outcomes the provision would help achieve, but my point was many LA EP reports don’t include the above - IPSEA even have a model letter parents can use to complain.

Just another thought OP, particularly as she is so young, would you be opposed to her repeating the reception year?. That might also be a struggle to get the school to accept but it could be really beneficial for your dd.

@JaffavsCookie

Just another thought OP, particularly as she is so young, would you be opposed to her repeating the reception year?. That might also be a struggle to get the school to accept but it could be really beneficial for your dd.

I would prefer her not to as she did her nursery year in school, and will have done a year in reception, so three years might be a bit much.

She had also made friends in these two years that will continue into year one being the same class. I wouldn't want to take her away from children she has worked so hard to make friends with.

In September 2020 she couldn't even tolerate a child being in the vicinity of where she was. She would scream and cry and drop to the floor if anyone got near her or tried to play with the same toys
Now, she is playing happily alongside children, sometimes with them, is coping with joining in at play time and will work in groups with her keyworker playing sharing games etc.

There was a time I thought friends might not be possible at least not at this stage, but she has amazed me how much she had accepted and learned to cope with.

It sounds like she has made loads of progress already, that’s great.

@JaffavsCookie

It sounds like she has made loads of progress already, that’s great.

Thankyou, she really has!

@Imitatingdory

Doubleraspberry who is providing the 1:1 makes a huge difference. It is possible to get the 1:1’s experience, training and qualifications specified in section F.

Some schools who claim to know DC well don’t actually. Some claim DC are “fine” in school when the DC is anything but. Telling parents their DC doesn’t need a diagnosis/doesn’t need an EHCP/won’t get an EHCP/won’t get 1:1 or SS when that isn’t the case. The child is diagnosed or the parent applies for an ECHNA or successfully pursues 1:1 or SS.

Parents should be encouraged to appeal when the LA refuse to assess, refuse to issue or the parent disagrees with the provision or placement. The majority of appeals to SENDIST are upheld.

Ours says that the TA should be an ASD specialist trained in demand avoidance techniques but in reality they are pretty hard to find. So the first one had basic ASD training with outreach support/training. She tried very hard and was the loveliest person, but the difference that the fully trained TAs made - and the fact that we’ve gone from barely in class to within reaching distance of full days (and breaks) spent with the class - was amazing. I think I had attributed too much of it to having new people, and the dynamic of two people to reduce what can often be manipulative behaviour from my DC, and hadn’t recognised how much difference their training was making. I’m really pleased that the new school has found a contract TA with experience of working in an ASD specialist school and is only prepared to recruit someone with the right training gives me a lot of confidence.

We have been very ‘lucky’ in that our child has demonstrated their needs most clearly in the school environment. As you say, schools can downplay a child’s needs but it was never in the interests of our school to do so. I know children with far more severe needs than ours who are quiet enough at school (or don’t even manage to attend) whose needs have gone unrecognised for far too long.

It’s brilliant she is making so much progress. However in terms of increasing the support she gets now that may make it harder as their argument will be what is in place is working. Sadly the system is generally reactive rather than proactive. It shouldn’t be that way but it is

Have you thought of an SRB? My daughter started at one for year 3 and will be there until she leaves primary school.

My DSs first few EHCPs were written based on my LAs professionals reports. Section F was woolly for years as the LA professionals didn’t specify and quantify support. In DSs case it didn’t matter as he was getting amazing support from his TA which was funded separately from his EHCP.
I had asked multiple times for the 1–1 hours to be written in but no one would commit in writing even though they verbally agreed he needed that level of support.
Then when DSs funding wasn’t being used for a 1-1 (he had moved to secondary) and DS was struggling as a result I asked again for it to be written into the EHCP - again I was told that the LA don’t write 1-1 hours in.
I commissioned a private Ed Psych and only then did the LA write in some hours (but only half of what was needed), I had to really push. I wasn’t happy with my final plan so the LA arranged a emergency review within 3 weeks of me getting it as they knew I was planning to appeal. They gave me the 1-1 hours I wanted. I appealed anyway as by then DS needed more support than his school could offer and ‘won’ a placement at specialist before even reaching tribunal.

It’s very unusual to get 1-1 written into an EHCP in my LA. The ones who do have it written in are usually because the families have appealed and sought private assessments.

Ds 4 has a ECHP with 15 hours 1-1 support the peaditritian wrote in her letter he would need 1-1 support to be able to attend nursery or school next year when he starts reception it says he will get 35 hours 1-1 support and attend special school.
He should have started reception in September but his echp was not sorted out and there was no space in the special school has he was summer born we was able to deffer him.

I noticed the echp has used most things the peaditritian recommended in her letter.

@Sirzy

It’s brilliant she is making so much progress. However in terms of increasing the support she gets now that may make it harder as their argument will be what is in place is working. Sadly the system is generally reactive rather than proactive. It shouldn’t be that way but it is

Although she is making progress, the SENCO has expressed concern about her ability to cope in year one when it's no longer a play based setting. So I do hope they will already be on the same page as me when the conversation takes place.

the SENCO has expressed concern about her ability to cope in year one when it's no longer a play based setting.

Do you have that in writing?

@Imitatingdory

the SENCO has expressed concern about her ability to cope in year one when it's no longer a play based setting.

Do you have that in writing?

No, she said it during an informal chat when discussing the need for an ehcp review.

In future follow up all verbal conversations with emails, then you have a paper trail as evidence should you need it at a later date.