AIBU to have told DS he can ignore teacher on this one?

[OverExpectantParent]

DS is Yr6, has SN and a 1:1TA 6 lessons a week.
After reluctance to go to school, he finally said why. Yr3 teacher is ill and his TA is covering for her. He has been told he will have to go into the Yr3 classroom for his maths lesson today.

I told him he didn't have to, he could ask to do his work in the corridor or stay in his classroom. That I will back him on refusing to go into the Yr 3 classroom, but he must do his work. He's worried the Yr 3's will laugh at him and ask why he's there 🙁
AIBU to have told him that?

The op definitely needs a meeting. I don’t think going in and telling the school what they did was illegal is the right way to go, mainly because it probably wasn’t. She should absolutely be pushing to know how the teacher thought this solution would benefit her son and not just get him out of the way as well as when they are planning on making the time up.

I'm all for keeping any meeting low key and trying to be constructive. But on any interpretation what the school did was unlawful - either they were in breach of the duty to provide what is in the EHCP, or they were discriminating on the basis of disability.

I think the OP needs to speak to the school about the class teacher, regardless of whether what they did in respect of his TA time was illegal or not. I am concerned about their comments that the teacher wouldn’t know where her son is in maths, and if the TA wasn’t there her son would just read a book and the teacher sometimes says he forgets he’s there! Doesn’t seem he’s getting the education/intervention/support he needs and is entitled to. And his initials definitely need to be removed from the website. Absolutely no need for them to be on there

You’re misunderstanding me. I’m not saying it needs to be low key, or even particularly constructive. The school hasn’t necessarily done anything illegal yet and going in all guns blazing telling them that they have isn’t going to help anything. The op needs a clear explanation for the thinking in sending her son to year 3 yesterday and an assurance that it won’t happen again. She also needs to know when the hours will be made up.

He's worried the Yr 3's will laugh at him and ask why he's there

yr 3s are 8, they won't give it a second thought or forget about it straight after it happens. Having said that, if you have a problem talk to the school, your approach is inappropriate. You are an adult and it's very wrong to undermine the school and say that to your son.

My dd had a specification of 5 lessons per week support but they could change the times of them unfortunately (dd being autistic hated change to routine!) switching a ta to cover a class if only gets 6 lessons of 1:1 isn't unreasonable as it can be made up. His class teacher should be watching him though not sending him to year 3!

@AnIckabog you don’t have enough information to know whether ”the school are legally allowed to use the TA for cover if they can still get his 6 hours in a week.” ”and there is no reason they can't make up the 1:1 later in the week.” or that the “School have (so far, and as far as OP knows) used a perfectly legal and reasonable solution.” because OP has not clarified whether the EHCP specifies the lessons the 1:1 must be given for. She posted it is timetabled for certain lessons although that doesn’t necessarily mean it is in the EHCP.

@motogirl just because DD’s EHCP was vague and woolly doesn’t mean the OP’s DS’s is. So, you don’t know it ”isn't unreasonable as it can be made up. His class teacher should be watching” because you do not know whether the EHCP specifies which lessons the 1:1 must be given for.

Perhaps you can clarify what the EHCP states @OverExpectantParent?

@PurpleDaisies pointing out the school have acted unlawfully one way or another, as @AmaryIlis posted, doesn’t mean you have to go in “all guns blazing”, it is possible to be polite, factual and constructive.

Why are only some of my @‘s working?

I completely agree that an all guns blazing approach isn't needed. However, I'm also concerned that OP will be met with the sort of bullshit that we've seen on this thread, with the head claiming they couldn't do anything else and trying to guilt-trip her about 30 kids having to do without a teacher. So she needs to be prepared to point out that if they won't make up the 6 hours and/or accept that her child's TA shouldn't automatically be the first port of call when they have a problem, they are in breach of their own and the LA's statutory duties. And that even if they are prepared to make up the 6 hours, shunting her child off to a lower class to be babysat by the TA is discrimination on the basis of his disability.

So she needs to be prepared to point out that if they won't make up the 6 hours and/or accept that her child's TA shouldn't automatically be the first port of call when they have a problem
They're having sports day next week, DS is off sport and will be spending the whole day helping TA. If I say anything, I'm certain they'll claim these are his make up hours!

Could he do some maths with her on sports day even if it's an hour

Perhaps the whole EHCP system needs revisiting.

It does. Parents shouldn’t need to fight and know the laws inside out simply to access their child’s basic right to education

I think you've already accepted that this was your battle to fight, not your son's; however, the whole situation is entirely ridiculous - - making him follow his assigned TA into Y3 was not in his interests at all, as she could not have given him his 1-1 support if she was covering a class and he might as well have stayef with his own class for all the good it did him.

I doubt very much that this was some sort of 'payback' for you complaining previously, however. It does sound like someone wasn't actually thinking straight at all, but worried you might complain if he were not with his TA!

Is this TA following him up to high school, by the way? Or is something else being sorted by that school? I'm only asking out of interest (I'm a retired high school headteacher!)

If only the government would issue a green paper and start a consultation….. oh wait they have

It would be extremely unlikely the EHCP stated that the 6 hours have to be a specific 6 hours - so uncommon I assumed OP would have said if that was the case. So, on the basis of the information we have, no the school have not done anything unlawful.

OP, I'm afraid that unfortunately those hours next week probably do legally count as his 'catch up' so yes the school will say that and annoying as it is, they are almost certainly technically correct. There is almost always some small print somewhere that it needs to be 6 hours on average, ie can be made up another week (because otherwise TA absence would be impossible).

EHCPwise this doesn't sound like they are in breach at all. What is far more concerning is that the year 6 teacher thought it would be better for a TA (presumably not a qualified teacher, although maybe HLTA) to simultaneously teach a class of 8 year olds and supervise your son than to do it himself with the rest of his class who are 3 years older. It sounds like they are exploiting the TA as well here.

It is more than possible the EHCP states which lessons the 6hrs of 1:1 must be given for. It is only uncommon because of how many EHCPs are vague and woolly, it is not that uncommon in a properly specified and quantified EHCP. Especially since the OP posted it is timetabled for certain lessons and DS has difficulties with maths.

There is almost always some small print somewhere that it needs to be 6 hours on average

Not in a properly specified and quantified EHCP there isn’t. Only when it is so vague and woolly it isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

Even if the EHCP doesn’t specify the hours they should not have discriminated against OP’s DS because of his disability.

@LargeLegoHaul yes, I meant it won't specify when they need to be e.g. it should say '3h support in Maths and 3h in English' but it won't specify that the Maths has to be at 10 am on Mon, Tue Wed. So the 1:1 catch would have to be for the subject they missed, but it can be at any time, so they can say they will do the Maths next week during the sports day he isn't doing.
There does need to be a level of reasonableness in the regulations around catch up for schools to be able to still provide the hours around staff absence, which happens because staff aren't robots. That is not the problem here, the problem is that they told him to go to year 3 for some unspecified reason. And they have his initials on the website. I don't think it is helping by detracting from the actual problems here with spurious claims of unlawful behaviour around the EHCP.

I agree sending to Y3 and the initials are a problem. But if the EHCP specifies and quantifies the 1:1 is to cover the class’s maths lessons then 1:1 must be provided for that, not for maths at some point in the future. A good EHCP won’t allow it to be at any time.

They are not spurious claims. EHCPs should be detailed, specific and quantified. As also has been stated by others, a good school can work around staff absence without breaching EHCPs and without EHCPs being vague and woolly.

yr 3s are 8, they won't give it a second thought or forget about it straight after it happens.
maybe they won't but he is old enough to.

I have emailed the head and asked for immediate removal of DS's initials from the website. Citing data protection and that his initials mean he is identifiable.

I have emailed the TA and asked for clarification, told her he wasn't happy about it and asked that if the situation were ever to arise again, I'd like to be informed in advance. I'm not going to make a huge fuss, but next time they declare they're unable to do something in their time allocated to him, ask why his TA is then able to go teach elsewhere.

Silly idea by the teacher. However, I think your DS will get over it. He'll find out tomorrow it's really on.

You really should have rung the school office and explained. They could have informed the teacher.