New head wanting to move away from good SEN reputation

[yoshiblue]

We are currently looking at a number of secondary schools for my DS in Year 5 and has ADHD. One of our options is a non selective secondary who recently has had a new head.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that the head is trying to move the school away from having a reputation for SEN and attracting EHCP pupils.

For those who work in education, I’m keen to understand the reasons for this. It’s my assumption it’s probably to do with lack of money/resources to support these children? Maybe even an EHCP doesn’t bring the actual money it should to support a child? Is it down to pressure for results too? I know the school has joined a MAT a couple of years ago.

My son generally has low level SEN needs but obviously want him to be understood and supported. Sadly where we live, there are a lot of grammar schools and the other catchment comprehensive isn’t great so it is one of our main options.

Advice most appreciated.

We're aware of that, thank you. But I can't successfully work 1:1 if someone else in the room is kicking and screaming. I'd like nothing best that to devote every second of the day to my 1:1, as I am supposed to, but it's not possible in reality.

Of child A is disturbing your 1:1 child, then NOT dealing with child A is failing your 1:1 child. Equally, if 1:1 child ‘s needs include working with others, or working independently, it is failing to meet ‘your’ child’s needs if you are the barrier to them working with a group or if you remain velcroed to their side.

What is absolutely wrong - and what us happening, through no fault of cash strapped schools haemorrhaging staff and gaining children with high needs - is taking a 1:1 member of staff deliberately or in an unplanned way away from the child they should be supporting because the government and the SEN system is failing other children.

The fact the other child has SEN doesn’t change the pupil’s need or entitlement to 1:1. They should still be receiving 1:1 regardless of the other pupil’s SEN. The school should pursue further support for the other pupil and they should do whatever they would if the 1:1 support wasn’t present rather than act unlawfully. The ‘Velcro TA’ rhetoric serves no purpose other than as an excuse schools and LAs use as to why 1:1 isn’t required, doesn’t actually mean 1:1, isn’t helpful… None which is a lawful excuse not to provide 1:1 detailed, specified and quantified in F that is deemed reasonably required.

You're really saying that if you're the other adult in a room where your non 1:1 child is kicking, punching etc you wouldn't try to intervene, or take action to keep the other children safe?
I find that highly unbelievable.

No, I’m saying the school should act to secure additional support so they aren’t acting unlawfully by not providing 1:1. In the case of that poster there is also 1 or 2 other adults in the room not providing legally mandated 1:1.

My DS has 1-1 funding. His support was shared with another child who didn’t yet have funding. Both children were being failed as neither were getting the support needed. It ended with one child at an independent placement with very high travel costs and the other child out of school as they lost all support. Sharing support actually ended up costing the LA a lot!

How do you know they aren't working with the LA? 1:1 funding can take years, especially when parents are reluctant to apply.

If you're on the ground in the classroom you do all you can to help.

The school clearly isn’t working to enforce the child with 1:1’s EHCP, which as the LA is ultimately responsible for ensuring the SEP in EHCPs is provided, doesn’t take years.

It does take years if the solution needed is to meet the needs of the other pupils in the classroom - as the discussion throughout this thread has been, although each EGCP is written as if each child exists in their own bubble, in reality they exist in a classroom, where others do impact on them.

JR to enforce a pupil’s EHCP does not take years. The other pupils’ SEN isn’t relevant to the enforcement of the EHCP with 1:1.

IME it does take years to get the other children the support they need from the LA.

As you're so passionate about EHCPs and what the LA do, please join the teaching profession.

JR to enforce 1:1 in an EHCP does not take years.

I don’t need to join the teaching professional to support parents and schools to secure and enforce EHCPs.

But getting the other children the 1:1 support does.

Meanwhile the 1:1 TA doesn't sit glued to the 1:1 child as Rome burns in the background.

We'd love someone to support EHCP applications, and ensure they are reasonable for teaching staff or come with funding.

Ironically we can't afford to do this. Do we get the best the senco can get as one person dealing with this on top of their other workload.

As I posted, the other child’s SEN is not relevant to the enforcement of the child with 1:1’s EHCP.

I have supported thousands of parents and numerous schools to secure and enforce EHCPs.

Of course the other child's SEN isn't relevant to the EHCP. But you're completely ignoring the reality of life in a classroom. And the reality of school funding and how bloody hard it is for parents and teachers to get anywhere near the support they need or deserve.

I'm off now, to plan for my classes tomorrow and ensure all needs are met.

No, I’m not. I just don’t agree with unlawful behaviour being excused.

It's not being excused.

Walk a day in the shoes of a mainstream class teacher with multiple EHCPs, then come and judge.

It is being excused.

Do I excuse the 1:1 TA or teacher who leaves the side of the child they ate legally tied to to prevent severe injury or other harm to another.

Of course I do. Safeguarding is everyone’s business.

Do I blame the government for failing to properly resource schools and SEN provision to prevent the situation arising?

Of course. Lay the blame where it is due - not with TAs, not with schools, not with teachers or SENCos. With those genuinely in charge of the policies and purse strings.

It is possible to think the government is to blame at the same time as thinking schools shouldn’t act unlawfully either.

thinking schools shouldn’t act unlawfully either.

You've been presented with a scenario and can't offer any option for what actions the school can take in the moment. Everything you've said takes time to happen. Wheras a 1:1 stopping another child getting hurt is an in the moment response.

I have presented an immediate option, just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean I haven’t.