To want my autistic DC to start reception in mainstream?

[Ambern7]

DC gets on well at mainstream nursery but is developmentally behind peers. I am not happy with the special needs provisions in our area so have opted for mainstream with good support in place through EHCP, which we fought hard for.
However, professionals involved keep asking me if we are sure we don’t want to go with the special provisions, they have listed lots of things they think are great about the school, however I don’t think the facilities will benefit my DC personally.
These unwanted opinions have got me second guessing something I was so sure of previously. I just don’t see the problem of starting off in mainstream and seeing how it goes, AIBU?

I think another point that should be considered is that your child going to school should not be a source of conflict and stress for you or your child. IF you have to be in daily contact with the school or you are constantly needing to complain or check things then it probably just isn't working.

Yes, this would be my thinking too. The impact of potentially constantly having to fight for what's needed, particularly in a context of schools already being in a massive funding and recruitment crisis when the child starts. That's not to say a DC couldn't possibly be better off in mainstream even in these circumstances, but the realistic possibility of having to constantly fight and the impact this will have on the whole family is one of the factors that needs to be factored into the decision. Think about whether you're willing and able but also the practicalities. This is work- which parent will have responsibility for it? How will it fit in with the division of labour in your household? Stuff like that.

I can tell you that the success of a mainstream placement for ASD children depends on your child's needs. Not academics. Forget that, if you can. Academic needs will be well catered for in either provision.

sadly there is a large section of children for whom specialist schools can’t meet academic needs. Ds is academically able with a very spikey profile but for him he goes to school to learn. I don’t know if he will be able to sit GCSEs but I need the option there. None of the specialist secondary schools in a reasonable travel distance offer a full range of GCSEs and only one actually offers any at all.

we are lucky that at the moment his mainstream secondary is amazing (he has full 1-1 and a very good support package in place) and it’s a smaller school so he can cope with the reasonable adjustments in place. If that fails though we will have to fight for an EOTAS package for him because the other settings available couldn’t meet his specific needs.

In my experience (17 years in mainstream primary, 12 as slt) if professionals are recommending special provisions and believe you will get a place, I would definitely listen to them and apply for special.

If it turns out not to be the right place, a move from special to mainstream is far more likely to happen than a move from mainstream to special.

We have children who have been waiting for places for years and years and although we could meet their needs in eyfs, the picture dramatically changes by ks2 and by then we really struggle to get them into the provision they need.

Think longer term is my advice. If Mai stream will be unsuitable at ks2, give special a serious consideration.

a) In lower primary I had another DC in the same class who could articulate whether DS3’s 1:1 wasn’t with him.
b) DS3 is a very reliable narrator of events and would say. I appreciate this isn’t the case for all.
c) everyone would know if DS3 didn’t receive his provision as he would be too anxious to attend, or attend but be unable to access the classroom.
d) the other provision e.g. SALT, OT, physio, CP send me a summary after every session.
e) the school is supportive but know if it wasn’t provided we would enforce the provision. Knowing we will enforce the provision means the school do provide it.

the TA would be assigned to their DC so technically the provision was being met

If the provision is being used to support others even if that’s just dipping in and out and the EHCP is worded correctly the school are acting unlawfully and provision isn’t technically being met.

The parents may have agreed to that as part of the placement. Education staff in the mainstream setting don't need to provide intimate care.

Whether it is education staff or someone else within the school that provides the intimate care schools should not be requiring parents to come to school to change DC.

Nursery is mainly learning through playing, as is reception. The difficulty starts when things become far more structured and greater demands are placed on your child.

Realistically, what are the chances if you getting a place at the start at 7 school? If that’s a real possibility, then that’s a good option. If not then I’d seriously consider a SEN school now.

I just wanted to back this up incase zny other parents are reading with children who need help with toileting/ nappies. Parents should not be asked to come into school to change a child. The child should have a healthcare plan which details how their support will be given this should then be incorporated into the ehcp section f.

For a school to leave a child while they wait for parents to change them is tantamount to abuse.

It is discrimination for a school not to accept a child on this basis.

sadly there is a large section of children for whom specialist schools can’t meet academic needs.

I would absolutely agree with this. For children with ASD of average or high academic attainment, it is rare to find a suitable specialist school locally. If their sensory, communication, social and behaviour needs can possibly be accommodated IN THE CLASSROOM with support, then mainstream with a high enough level of support is the ‘least bad’ option.

However, for children who combine significant additional learning needs with ASD, or whose sensory needs or how easily they are overwhelmed mean that their specific curriculum will have to be delivered 1:1, including outside the classroom, then specialist schooling is likely to be the ‘least worst’ option.

It is worth looking at the KS1 curriculum, remembering it will be delivered mainly via direct whole class teaching, to consider how rapidly academic demand ramps up in English schools.

My dad has autistic traits and my son had no eye contact when he was four and the peds doctor agreed he was not interested in watching people and referred him for an autism assessment. It came back borderline. He had issues at 9 with bullying and he was referred again but in the meantime I started brushing for infant reflexes not going dormant (worth googling it) and when his assessment came back it was he did not have autism.
I have adhd. I think ‘labels’ can be helpful as they can direct you to the appropriate care.
But you have decided your child is autistic - without an assessment. As you have said you have an echp because you got a lawyer - I looked into this myself and it’s very expensive and I have a child at private school so we do have a decent income.
You clearly love you son and no doubt want the best for him - but my point is unless he has had a diagnosis it is too early to label him as autistic. Also if your echp says he should be in mainstream I think you will struggle to get a place on a sen school - unless you asked for your echp to be changed? Why would the council pay for a sen place when your echp says mainstream is the best option for him?

I agree about Nursery and Reception-the start of KS1 is when things can become very difficult very quickly for some high need children in mainstream. Unfortunately, by that point-there are generally no spaces left in special school.

It can be written in, but it doesn't mean they'll be able to find someone to fill the role or stay in the role for an extended period of time. Most 1:1 TAs I know/knew don't last long because of the lack of support and crappy pay; others flee as soon as they don't 'need' a term time job anymore (their own children get old enough to not need them to be available as much).

A 'higher rate' isn't really that much in education for TAs.

Our primary is constantly recruiting for TAs because they keep leaving.

And office staff.

And lunch supervisors.

most roles don't even get applicants...

The “higher rate” can be whatever it takes to ensure the provision is provided. As I posted up thread, I know a pupil whose TA is funded at the same level as the teacher’s main pay scale because that is what it takes to ensure the legally required provision is delivered.

Accepting unlawful practices does no one any favours.

We have something similar in my area - the MLD schools do not take reception age, there's 1 that will take Yr1, but most only take from YR3. SLDs have

So this is different to trying to make a move when there is a reception entry point.

I have 2 DC with EHCPs, neither in mainstream. But we need to start thinking about a secondary for DS3 soon and it's a nightmare. A lot of SEN provision isn't suitable for him, and would be just as damaging, or even moreso, than a mainstream.

I would just box smart on it - make sure the EHCP is in top shape for mainstream then make sure you have decent assessments for the transition year into your chosen setting. Assuming you still want to make the move by then.

If provision is specified and quantified in section f, the parent can apply for judicial review against the local authority if it isn't being provided.

The la have to by law provide what us in section f of an ehcp, regardless of cost so if they have to pay a 1:1 a salary higher than the teacher that is what they have to do.

In reality most plans aren't written so that they meet this test (I am posting to raise awareness) and the LA cannot be held to account however in using the argument that the plan isn't specified enough for this they are admitting that they have failed to write the plan appropriately and this should then be remedied and the parents then have the option of JR.

Many parents aren't aware of the laws around ehcp's and theirs and their child's rights in this regard.

Teachers even sencos aren't trained adequately if at all in this regard.

If anyone reading this has a child with an ehcp please see ipsea or sossen websites.

I think, for those focusing on the legal aspect, it is worth thinking about the circumstances in which schools may end up not matching the provision in an EHCP to the letter.

It starts with recruitment. For a September start in Reception, a head will review who is currently available in the school. It is likely - given the current vacancy levels and TAs leaving for better paid work in retail or care - that this will need to be a new recruit, as any TAs staying on into the new school year will already be legally attached to other children. If nobody who fits the precise description laid down in the EHCP applies, does the head employ someone who is less qualified or do they leave the position vacant?

Then term starts. As well as the child with already diagnosed needs and an EHCP, 3 or 4 other children start with levels of need that will eventually merit an EHCP but one has not yet applied for. One is a flight risk. Two are violent when upset. One is a serious safeguarding concern. Yes, the employed TA should only be working with their 1:1, but in an overall environment of under-staffing, prevention of physical harm to others remains a priority. The 1:1 TA works with the teacher to take action to prevent that harm and then escorts a violent child to the Head.

Then you have breaks and absences. The 1:1 TA themselves needs appropriate breaks every day. They may be ill. They may leave. They may need to cover eg break duties if there are not sufficient other adults in the school to otherwise supervise children outside while allowing teaching staff a toilet break. The school - and this has often happened over the last few years - may simply not have enough adults on site to maintain all classes open with an adult in front of them AND all 1:1 TAs in place. There are no supply teachers available, even if there was money to pay fir them. Faced with a choice of closing classes or using a 1:1 TA as a ‘body’ in front of a class to prevent this while meaning the EHCP children may be 2:1 OR supervised by a totally unqualified adult, heads may reluctantly decide that not closing classes has to be a priority.

I won’t detail all the other scenarios in which, despite the legal position, a 1:1 TA may not always be exactly the right person nor working 1:1 with their allocated child - first aid emergencies, behaviour emergencies etc etc. In a world where every very high needs child has an EHCP and support in a timely manner from an easily-available pool of resource, this shouldn’t happen. In a world where, for any number of reasons, very high needs children enter school with their needs undiagnosed; where 80% of schools will be unable to balance their books next year leading to significant staffing cuts; and where TAs are leaving in droves, it may happen. Not because heads want to break the law, but because sometimes they have little option.

I know and agree. Accepting unlawful practices really doesn’t help anyone.

(Obviously parents can and should seek legal redress for egregious failures to meet what is specified in an EHCP - but again that takes time, time where a child is not well supported and possibly very upset in school. In my experience, it is the everyday ‘small failures’ due to extreme strain elsewhere in the system - understaffing, illness, children with undiagnosed high needs, long waiting lists for specialists delaying EHCPs (we had 2 years when no specialist would cone into school because it was Covid unsafe), long term effects of Covid measures on children’s socialisation and development - that are the main difficulty that parents should be aware of)

Not providing the provision specified and quantified in EHCPs is never acceptable. A lot of the time threatening JR works and if that doesn’t a pre-action letter mostly does. Yes, it takes time but it is relatively quick compared to other avenues. Also, once LAs and school realise parents will enforce DC’s rights they are less likely to act unlawfully.

A well written EHCP can cover breaks and lunch. DS3’s does. Absences must also be covered. @Sirzy provides an example of this upthread.

I also think people need to be aware that the 1.1 who will be largely dealing with their chil is often an unqualified person. They may be interested and kind. They may want to do their best but they are sometimes no more qualified than many parents you might meet at the school gate. Training is usually shadowing another TA for a while. If your child has any behavioural needs then think some more as the TA may give up if they are chasing your child around or they are challenging to deal with. Many can only cope for short periods so will do a morning or a lesson before swapping with someone else. Some schools will struggle to recruit. I think people believe that getting the EHCP means they are sorted. It is just the start. What if your child doesn't get on with the one to one? What if they go off sick and they drive the stand ins? What if your child is so behind their peers that the TA is basically teaching your child with reception resources while the rest of their class is learning about adverbial?

I have worked in schools for many years and have seen many children placed inappropriately in mainstream. It is often difficult for them to access special schools at all as they are deemed to be coping or their parents think that if people or their peers were more understanding it would be fine.

The biggest issue is when writing plans language like “high level of support” is used because it’s so ambiguous it’s impossible to enforce because what is a high level of support? Sadly many plans aren’t worth the paper they are written on because section F is so poor. Unless parents have the means (financial, emotional etc) to fight things themselves sadly local authorities will keep getting away with wooly plans.

I also think people need to be aware that the 1.1 who will be largely dealing with their chil is often an unqualified person. They may be interested and kind. They may want to do their best but they are sometimes no more qualified than many parents you might meet at the school gate

Absolutely. We have had parents who firmly believed that EHC funding got them a full-time 1:1 specialist teacher in autism. What they actually got was a mum from the school community wanting a term-time only job.

Not providing the provision specified and quantified in EHCPs is never acceptable.

Nor is looking on while an unsupported high-needs violent child seriously hurts another, saying ‘I’m x’s 1:1, I am legally required to be with them so I will ignore the physical harm y is currently suffering, even though the only other adult in the room, the class teacher, is already dealing with another high needs child on the other side of the room’.

(Obviously it should never come to this type of choice. But in the current climate in schools, it’s not a particularly rare choice for staff to have to make, and will become more common as funding and thus staffing shortages become more and more acute while children’s needs rise)

So it’s acceptable for the child with the legally necessary provision to go without their support but not for the child the teacher is dealing with to go without. I’m not saying it should be like that, it shouldn’t, there should be support for all who need it but it is not the responsibility of the DC with EHCPs or their parents to go without provision they are legally entitled to and deemed to need. No one gets full time 1:1 specified and quantified if it isn’t necessary.