Anyone else think this is totally inappropriate (RE headteacher's son)

[PumpkinPorridge]

A child in my dd's school has a statement for behavioural and learning difficulties.

He happens to be the headteacher's son. They are advertising for a 1:1 support to work with him and the contact person is the HT himself!

Anyone else feel that this is not appropriate and that the deputy, SENCO or chair of governors should be handling this??

I'd like to think the HT would just want the best person for the job, as they would with any 1-1 person employed by the school.

I'm also sure HT would want the fit to be perfect for any child and know that child's requirements inside out, as a statemented child, hers or not.

I am totally at a loss to think of a reason why you would think it inappropriate.

I have to say I'm also a bit as to why you seem to know so much about it. Was it your child he hurt? Or are the jungle drums beating? All a bit mean-spirited sounding, sorry, that's how I feel.

I also can't see any conflict of interest here.

I can see why the incident involving the child hurting someone else would be difficult for the head to deal with objectively.

But I don't understand what inappropriate action the head could potentially take with respect to the hiring of this support worker.

I'm a teacher. It is standard procedure for all staff applying to a school to address their letter to the head- this doesn't mean he/she is involved in the recruitment process at all, in fact when applying for jobs I have sometimes not met the head at all during the interview process.

I still would love to know why the OP feels it's inappropriate. X could happen if the head was the one who employed the TA. It's inappropriate because...

I honestly don't understand why the incident described could lead to the head employing the wrong person or something.

I don't understand what the OP feels might happen.

I'd really love her/him to come back and walk me through it.

An incident happened.
The child has a statement.
Statements come with funding from the LEA
The school has decided that the child needs 1:1 support
A person is to be employed.
The head (also the child's father) is the point of contact for the applicants.
It is inappropriate for the head to be involved in this process because if he is, he might...

What? Choose the wrong person for his child? Choose a really good person for his child and this is somehow wrong? Won't be objective in the search for a staff member and this will result in what, exactly?

No matter which way I look at this, I just don't get it.

Hecate - sorry to sound picky, but do please be aware that not all LAs attach funding to Statements - of course the Statements sets out what the school must put in place in terms of support, but in some places funding is decided separately (eg by audit of needs) so there is not always a total correlation between number of hours on Statement = funding from LA.

Often the head teacher is the SENCO in a primary school. I feel sorry for him, it can't be ideal to have your own son in your school. Especially if all the parents hate him because he has behavioural/ learning difficulites.

I imagine there must be more to this than OP sees. Surely getting a 1 to 1 for a statemented child is a positive step. It means that the child's behaviour will be managed more closely and incidents like children getting hurt will happen a lot less.

Do you honestly want this child excluded as first line of action? Surely all primary schools should seek to be inclusive. The days of sending difficult children off to special school are long gone in many parts of the country.

Not sounding picky at all. I didn't know that. My two have statements and we've lived in both Herts (long story. bad LEA!) and Derbyshire and my lads come with a requirement for full time (incl lunch and break) 1:1 - 2:1 offsite for my youngest and currently full teaching hours paid for by the LA, with the school funding non teaching hours.

I didn't know that LAs don't always put money in. I know some funding comes from the school's budget, but I didn't know that there are some LAs that put nothing in!

Which are they - so I know to never ever move there! - seriously.

But I still don't understand why the OP thinks there's inappropriateness going on or what s/he fears will happen if the head hires a 1:1.

unless it actually is about the money?

Hecate - it's not so much that some LAs don't put anything in, it's more that the way they put the money in isn't linked directly to Statements. You can imagine, it causes awful problems at times, especially for smaller schools.

WRT the OP, I'm not sure what the issue is here??? Would be usual in most cases for the Ht to be involved in recruiting any new member of staff, however also normal for other people to be involved at later stages (short-listing, interviews) as well.

God yes. I can. It would cripple a small school if the LA didn't put any money in but they had to employ someone! but if they did put money in, then the school wouldn't have a problem if they used it for that purpose, only if they didn't. Am I understanding right?

The OP hasn't indicated that her concern is financial, that somehow the head is being inappropriate by employing someone.

I'm just at a loss to understand the inappropriateness.

My suspiction is that OP doesn't feel this little boy deserves one to one support. Maybe she thinks that EBD bad children should be burnt at the stake.

Children with behavioural problems attract little sympathy and its harder for them to get a statement. Visible disablities like being a wheelchair get more sympathy.

If the boy needed one to one because he was in a wheelchair would the OP be bothered?

Definitely need to know why the OP thinks this is wrong?

As far as I can see he's the perfect person to recruit the 1:1.

I think NotWilliam is right, I don't have personal experience but I do know someone who was told that her DD's statement might not come with specific funding. In the end it did but I think the school would have really struggled without it as it was a fairly small school.

I don't see the problem either. However, I know I was a mildly concerned when one of the parent-governors specifically lobbied for the employment of a particular TA because as a man she thought he'd be a great person for one-to-one with her son with very complex needs. She was then pissed off when he wasn't assigned to her son, but it did seem like a possible conflict of interests.

Regardless of how LEAs fund SEN, a statement will set out what support the school must provide for a pupil NotWilliamBoyd.

mrz - erm, exactly, I agree, I said that in my first post at 11.14........

The point is if this child's statement says he needs 1-1 the school must find the money (whether he is the head teacher's son or not isn't relevant)

Again I agree mrz, I was just confused that you were directing your comment to me as if I had said something else?

the 1:1 for anyone would presumably be liasing closely with the parents of the child, so if you were an applicant wouldn't it be a bonus to meet a parent early on in the process

I don't see how it can have been swept under the carpet if an ambulance was called for the other child and the child is now going to be 1:1ed??

I probably just need to stop taking things personally!

I think ReallyTired has nailed it TBH.
As a teacher who had a child with AS and behavioural difficulties associated with that, there was a huge difference between the parents who thought that having a child with SN made me more informed, sensitive to parents and generally human, and those who didn't, and saw any reasonable accommodation made as indulgences given because I was a teacher.
'The incident was swept under the carpet' How often have I heard that said ebcause the incidents were dealt with appropriately and with those people involved that needed to be. However for some, without the pillory and public flagellation, how were they to know?
Those spiteful hissing geese made my days a lot harder, and his, although we weren't in the same school. He will appoint a support worker for the child, the governors will be informed, the SENCO would have approved.
OP, is it your business? Feel free to write to the governors.

It is unlikely that the head will be alone in appointing the support assistant.
When we interview there is a panel which includes the head, chair of governors, Senco and a parent governor at least.

How on earth do you know what's on his statement op?

Fancy a teacher having a child with sen....and a head teacher at that

The only possible reason one could be about this would be if the HT's child didn't have funding for an TA attached to their SEN, and that money was being diverted away from other children who needed the TA more.

Otherwise OP you sound quite unpleasant.

btw a TA in the classroom is generally an asset to all the children there, even if they are assigned to one particular child. The more the merrier and all that.

This is a very odd thread. OP I think you need to come back and answer some of these points because, at the moment, you are coming accross as not a very nice person.

What a surprise, where are you, OP?
Not the responses you were looking for?