AIBU to now want to go above my DC's school and take things further

[ballerina1971]

I am very angry with my DC's school. My youngest DC, age 13 has an EHCP with 24 hrs support. last summer when it was exam time it came to my attention my DC did not have a TA for support in lessons when I raised it with the the school they stated all TA'S were helping with exams for 2 wks
• I advised that my DC TA was funded for them through the EHCP, a legal document, not to be used elsewhere DC wasn’t to be without TA again. The school stated they had always done this, I advised this didn't make it right. I had the conversation with the SEN Department, Assumed the matter had been dealt with. My DC then came home in September stating there was no TA again As they were being used for the year sevens, I rang the SEN & insisted that my DC had the
• TA in lessons & having had this conversation with them I didn’t expect to be having it again. A few weeks later my DC came home asking why I had been complaining about the TA’s I was quite shocked by this and I said why are you asking, my DC told me the TA had said to her during a lesson that she better not do ,anything wrong (the TA ) as your mom has already been on the phone complaining to the school about the TA’S! Then earlier this year after my child had stated the teachers seemed to be being nice to her, the same TA said to my DC it’s because they’re scared of your mom she’s notorious around here and laughed. WTAF! This is wrong in so many ways such as, unprofessional, breach of confidentiality. now I’m fuming this is just another incident in a long list of incidents that have occurred since my DC have started there. I’m not talking minor, insignificant things, as I would let those things go I’m Not someone who feels the need to complain at every little minor thing. Very significant things such as overdosing my child on paracetamol and not advising me as per their procedures that they had given paracetamol just to give one example. There are only so many apologies I can receive from the school before I have to take it further. I’ve now had enough, I want this to stop. AIBU to now take this further and not go through the Complaints procedure again. I have followed the school’s complaint process on everything and now I’m sick of it I wish to go to the Local Authoritytand further. The school needs to be accountable for what they're doing I don’t feel at the moment they are. I get a sorry but then they go on to do something else

So Academies don't have any local authority involvement? All central govt funding?
What about buildings?

The buildings are usually leased from the LA.

I would suggest it is a very inept slt that would take a 1:1 from a child with that provision detailed in their ehcp because they haven't organised the support required by other children to sit their exams.

It is not selfish to enforce what is already theirs, what is selfish is to remove that provision because the school aren't organised.

If the children can't take their exams the fault would lie with the school not with the child with the ehcp or their family.

It is also worth pointing out that when a child recieves an ehcp or applies to a school with an ehcp, the school are asked if they can meet need (provide what is detailed in section f). If they can but require funding then say "yes we can but require x,y and z or else it would impact the education of others (incompatible with efficient use of funds or incompatible with efficient education of others or both).

In regards to academies, they have to follow the ehcp like any other school. If the la name an academy (I believe this hasn't changed) in an ehcp and they don't want to admit then they appesl to Secretary of education- not often done.

Yes there is la involvement with children with ehcp's as the la have to name the school in the plan. Ultimately the la is responsible for all provision in the plan.

https://www.ipsea.org.uk/faqs/academies

@Perzival

I would suggest it is a very inept slt that would take a 1:1 from a child with that provision detailed in their ehcp because they haven't organised the support required by other children to sit their exams.

Still waiting for someone to tell me where the support will come from when recruitment has failed for over a year. You have no answer, do you? Just admit it.

It is not selfish to enforce what is already theirs, what is selfish is to remove that provision because the school aren't organised.

The school has tried to organise by advertising for staff but no one applies. What should they do? Still no answers, eh?

If the children can't take their exams the fault would lie with the school not with the child with the ehcp or their family.

No. Because the head will do the right thing and redeploy the TAs to where they are needed. As a parent I would understand that my child is no more important than any other. And in this case I'd put up with it because, despite what you say, it is NOT the school's fault when they have tried their best.

It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. And still people are insisting that the staff don’t exist because the school ‘isn’t organised’.

Yet they understand that their inability to get a dentist or GP appointment isn’t because the surgery isn’t organised.

It is not selfish to enforce your child’s EHCP.

I have actually posted what schools should do if they can’t staff SEP in EHCPs. As have others.

You've said 'offer more money' and what if that STILL doesn't get staff?

As I posted, lack of staff is often given as a reason why SEP detailed, specified and quantified in F isn’t provided. It is not an actual barrier when parents pursue enforcement action because increased funding, increased salary, the LA employing staff directly and more effort on the LAs part works. Appropriate appointments are made when parents pursue JR. So ‘still not getting staff’ doesn’t happen when JR is on the cards.

Many people don't want to be TAs though now (in fact many people don't want to work in schools whatever the role, teacher, cover supervisor, invigilator, admin, premises, the list goes on). And staff in external agencies that look after children's health and welfare and pretty low on the ground too.

@Headfirstintothewild if everything can be solved by JR as you seem to think, why are so many parents, schools etc complaining about lack of staff, waiting lists for external agencies, lack of funds for young people with SEND. If everyone went for JR would that mean all this would be solved. I wonder why schools haven't thought of this

@crumblingschools It isn’t just what I think. JR can solve failure to comply with s42 CAFA.

As I also posted, for a multitude of reasons, some parents don’t pursue JR.
Some don’t pursue an appeal to SENDIST in order to get a watertight EHCP that can be enforced. Vague and woolly EHCPs, as many EHCPs are, can’t be enforced so parents need to appeal first and not all do.

@Headfirstintothewild but you are still not saying where all these new members of staff are coming from. And even if you manage to get anyone, many don't stay especially if behaviour is an issue.

I've helped with recruitment of TAs, the pool of applicants is usually woeful, and many don't have expertise. So maybe if the take up of JR is low then that can fix the problems for the few that take that route, but if more went that route I can't see it solving everyone's issues.

The ‘take up’ of JR isn’t low! The demand is actually extremely high. If the demand for pre-action letters wasn’t so high there wouldn’t be such a wait for SOSSEN’s free PAP project. If the demand for pre-action letters wasn’t so high it would be easier to find another organisation to write a pre-action letter. If the demand for JR wasn’t high there won’t be the pressure there is to find a firm with a legal aid contract to take your child (for JR proceedings themselves most types of cases are in the child’s name) on for those who pre-action letters don’t work.

Employers come from the population, the same as any other recruitment for any other employment. A higher wage and greater effort from the LA attracts more applicants. JR ensures an appropriate appointment is made. It works.

The TA is already employed to support the child with the ehcp. Replaying us not only the wrong thing to do it is unlawful.

The school are not trying the best when they remove a ta from a child who has in section f, they are acting unlawfully.

Recruitment of TA's to do other roles is not the responsibility of anyone but the school. The school needs to sort itself out. Why should the child with the ehcp lose out because the school can't get their act together?

redeploying not replaying.

Yes, the pool of applicants is low and poor quality BECAUSE the wage is far too low to compensate for the difficulty and responsibility of the job.

That's the point.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

None of our ehcp experts have come up with a real time solution for the week after next.

There's TAs and scribes needed. Despite recruitment drives and sterling efforts there are not enough.

So now schools have a choice: they either give the SEND kids taking their GCSES their legally entitled to scribes, or they give the kids with ehcps their legally entitled to hours. It's a choice nobody wants to make, or should have to make but the reality is that is HAS to be made.

You're the head teacher. To whom do you give the support?

That is the knife edge situation on the school heads are dealing with. I challenge any of you if it was your child taking their national exams to not believe that they should be entitled to be able to take those exams, and to do so with parity of access. And if that means a Yr7/8 has to spend some time without their TA then so be it, because one day the boot may be on the other foot and you can be 100% sure those parents will quite rightly be asking their kid is supported in those exams over a child who is not.

Until there's better funding, status and conditions in our schools this is NOT going to improve.

You don’t live in the real world do you?

ECHPs can also be used to force a school to accept a child they know they can’t support.

This happened a lot where I worked. One of the top grammars in the country…kids failed the entrance exam but parents got them in with an ECHP. The school was 100% not geared up to support them because as well as their SEN the intelligence level was not there to keep pace with the speed of learning - as evidenced by not passing the exam.

It was tragic for the kids as they knew they were falling behind and hated the hot house environment. To a man they crumbled under the pressure and developed severe anxiety. All these kids were reasonably smart and would have thrived in a normal secondary.

Se even when a school tries to refuse a child with an EHCP they can’t always.

Anyone reasonable would give the TA to the child who has most to lose by not having the support. That is always going to be the child sitting an exam. Anything else can be caught up with later.

A school cannot be forced to accept a child of they can't meet need. The school can cite "The setting is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs (“SEN”) of the child or young person" as a reason that the school can't meet need (one of three lawful reasons a school can use to refuse a child with sen. Easy to prove for a school if a child didn't get the required mark on an entrance exam. The LA would then need to name a school they do feel can meet need and the parents/ carers would have to challenge via appeal to tribunal.

If the posters on this thread that claim to work in schools and openly admit to not only unlawful practice but advocate for doing so truly are teachers then all this thread shows is that they are clearly uninformed in send law and the sen code of practice which they should have regarding to.... yes this is ineptitude and scapegoating.

For reference

Still no answer as to where the extra staff can be magical found despite all efforts failing.

To say it's the school's fault that no one wants the job is just plain stupid.

No one is saying it's the schools fault that no one wants the job. What is being said is that the solution isn't to remove a ta from a child with that provision in section f of it's ehcp. With the length of time exam dates are announced in advance some other solution can be found.

This maybe useful information for everyone especially OP.

https://www.ipsea.org.uk/enforcing-your-ehc-plan-special-educational-provision-section-f