I'm a teacher and happy to answer any questions

[DellaF83]

Hi, I'm an experienced primary school teacher and happy to answer any questions anyone may have.

[NewNameforNewTerm]

I must be lucky, insanity, as in my school and all the others in my area (great SENCo support network which includes visits to each other's schools) I have only seen support as I have discussed, rather than those you have concerns about.

[insanityscratching]

Oh and ds did have 1 to 1 for the whole of the day (initially for the safety of the others in the class/school) but he had a team of TA's that worked with him and group work would be done with the most able who didn't require support so that the TA only had to support him rather than with other children who needed support as well.

[NewNameforNewTerm]

It is not group work if they are all working independently.

[insanityscratching]

Well if they were playing games to aid his social skills the group would consist of those who could take turns and share without support (ds needed no academic support he'd got reading writing spelling and numeracy nailed before he started school) So in the group there wouldn't be another child who had difficulty with what the TA was supporting ds to do should I say.

[DameDeepRedBetty]

OP never posted under this nn before. And it was in the middle of the night. Just sayin...

[insanityscratching]

I don't know any school that doesn't use SEN TA's to support other children besides the child the support is attached to tbh But schools, SENcos and SEN TA's themselves are hardly going to be open about the fact that they aren't necessarily meeting the statement and are short changing the statemented child are they? Even dd's teacher squirmed initially when she let slip that her TA is doing a reading recovery programme with children not in dd's class and does nurture group with other children when her twenty hours worked are on dd's statement.As I say dd is thriving so for me it's not a problem but most statemented children aren't so fortunate to have excessive support that can be shared out.

[NewNameforNewTerm]

I think we are both getting bogged down in our differing views on when social learning take place, what group work means and how often it takes place, etc, insanity. I feel we are both coming from very different experiences so don't think our discussion is actually productive to this thread.
My year 2 lessons often have short teacher input (whole class, TA supporting named child), then tasks that continue and extend that area of learning (all differentiated depending on children's needs), but often the academic learning also has an additional learning objective or delivery method that requires group or collaborative learning. This addresses both moving the maths (or whatever) forward but also facilitates the social aspect of some of the IEPs and statements (and other children who need to work on cooperation) I have in my class. I don't just facilitate social skills at breaktime or when playing games. Team work, talk partner, reciprocal teaching, all extend each child's academic learning at the same time.
It is difficult for us not to get bogged down in semantics but your example of the child playing a game with peers is in a group so not pure 1:1 TA support, even if the others don't need reminders to wait their turn. The TA will still be discussing the game with the other children, extending their language, thinking skills, academic learning that is intrinsic to the game given.
It is really hard to try and put this learning into a vacuum of the child with SEN being in a busy, dynamic classroom with their TA and not expect the adult to interact (and as a result support) other children.

[Inclusionist]

It's such a shame that statements still suggest a specific number of 'hours' which is widely interpreted as time that a child should have an adult velcroed to them.

I hope the new breed of plans will clearly outline the type of support and arrangements that would benefit a child and provide a block of funding for it.

[NewNameforNewTerm]

Completely agree Inclusionist. Hours on statements and the insistence that the child has exactly as written can lead to the worst possible practice in weak schools that won't fight for those children. Stick little Johnny (apologies to any parents of a Johnny!) in the corner on a table by himself with his TA (or worst outside the classroom) so he gets his legal 25 hours support from his TA, without interruption by other children or it being diluted by group work when other children are on the table.
Exactly the practise I saw when newly qualified nearly 20 years ago. Thank goodness it has changed and pray it changes further.

[NewNameforNewTerm]

Whoops ... sorry... my turn to get a bit ranty! Home alone as DH taken children to church, then out to family as I recover from last week's D&V. Too befuddled to do school work, but feeling passionate about a little chap I am fighting to support in my school.
I'll bow out of this thread now

[yawningmonster]

As there are now a number of teachers on this post (just apparently not the op) can I ask would any of you at any point say to a parent that school is just not working for their child and they should consider home schooling or would you continue to put up with the limitations of legislation and funding and try to support that child in a school environment even though it is obvious that without some fundamental unachievable changes the child is not going to be adequately educated in the current school environment.

[insanityscratching]

Ds and dd have been well served by the statemented system , nether spent time outside the classroom to be fair (well apart from when ds bolted) But they had statements from three, I chose schools that suited them (not the OFSTED outstanding catchment one) and I worked hard to build good relationships with their teachers and statements here bring full funding so schools see it as worth their while having statemented children I suppose.
It's my last year of it all anyway ds is 19 soon and I'm taking dd out after y6 as there isn't anywhere for her to go next year because I am realistic in what support I can expect for dd.
I don't expect the new system to be better, just cheaper with fewer resources and more children failed.

[insanityscratching]

yawning I am taking dd out from July, her teacher whilst not saying that she won't thrive in secondary (because it's not the done thing I suppose) admits that she is very vulnerable and supports that I know her best.
The head of the unit (maintained) ds attended before he moved to independent specialist put his neck on the line by informing the LA his needs were greater than what a unit and 1 to 1 support could offer. He only did that because he had the backing of the HT who was very helpful to my solicitor (SENCo warned him not to) and it was an academy school so he was less vulnerable.
I think LA's deter schools quite effectively from speaking out tbh.

[insanityscratching]

Can I ask that if it's quite legitimate practice to use TA's attached to statemented children to support other children why, during the last OFSTED inspection, when dd's TA was off sick was I introduced to a TA who would be covering her TA's absence and worked alongside dd when usually she wouldn't be covered (it wouldn't be a problem to me or dd who was actually confused by their presence because she doesn't usually have a TA close by tbh)?
Surely if during a normal school week it is fine and dandy for the TA not to be with the child assigned then it's fine and dandy during inspection?

[mrz]

It really depends on the wording of the statement

[StarlightMcKenzie]

NewName 'When I, as class teacher, am spending some one-to-one or small group time teaching them and the TA (HLTA) is supporting the rest of the class.'

But this is not what their statement says if the 1:1 is specified. Doesn't the 1:1 need to be present in order to learn from the teacher what the next steps are for that child? The 'rest of the class' learning at such time should surely be dealt with in the same way as the rest of the class would be when the teacher spends 1:1 time with any other child.

'When it is an activity that requires group work, then the TA will have more children with her to create that group.'

Why? Surely whoever takes the group 'has the group' and the child's specified 1:1 supports that child in that group?'

'When it is not in the best interests of the child.'

But if it is specified in a statement that the child should receive full-time 1:1, you cannot override it with your own opinion of what is in the child's best interest. If it is specified there will have been a lot of evidence and expert recommendation that that is what the child needs to progress.

'the IEP is focusing on peer social interactions; you can't do that on your own with a TA'

It really depends on where the child is. Often they would have to begin by practising social skills and communication with an adult who can control their response and reward the interaction, but later on their 1:1 would have to set up small group or one of one interaction practise sessions with another child or two. In those instances, though there are other children, the TA is still there exclusively for that child and so fulfils the definition of 1:1.

'or if the child is becoming more dependent on that TA than is necessary or healthy.'

There should be no circumstances when a child becomes dependent on a TA, but if they do so, the answer is not to remove their support but give the TA additional training to ensure this doesn't happen.

'In which case I would sometimes expect the TA to start the child on the given activity, then move away for a few minutes (maybe helping other pupils within the room), returning to check at regular intervals that the child understands what is expected, is on task and coping.'

This has the biggest and most detrimental effect of teachers overriding the content of the statement. 1:1 in a statement means that that TA is EXCLUSIVELY for that child. The TA should not start the child, nor move away. The TA should step back and allow the child to work out as much of the activity as possible and begin. The TA is supposed to act like a shadow, monitoring the child's activity and stepping in as quick as lightening to redirect, reinforce, mend any social faux pas and use information gleaned from that lesson to work with the teacher to write the targets for next week from the things they found difficult.

They should NOT leave the child and help other children.

1:1 doesn't mean the child has a velcroed TA. It means that the TA is charged with no other duty but to support the child. If the teacher thinks that the child is too independent for that level of support he/she can raise it at the next annual review and have the statement amended or recommend an early annual review. He/She has NO business flouting the terms of the statement.

'Whilst I recognise the enormous value of one-to-one TAs, there are issues where I have concerns; - '
'That they are used to withdraw children from lessons too often.'

But that is surely a matter for the teacher. TAs don't do this off their own backs and the teacher not the TA is responsible for the education of the child.

'Children have a right to be taught by the teacher.'

Yes, but this right does not extend to enabling the teacher to remove their support that is specified in their statement'.

'They facilitate children in avoiding thinking for themselves and developing independence at a level that they are actually capable of.'

That's a generalisation but if it happens it means the teacher has not instructed the TA well enough or the TA has not been trained adequately. Poor quality TAing is not a good enough reason for refusing a child support that they have been awarded based on a long drawn out and in depth assessment.

'They actually prevent, rather than facilitate as some people assume, the child's integration into the class group by isolating them from their peers during group activities.'

Again, only a poor TA under the supervision of a poor teacher would do this.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

'That is where the letter of the law and statements fall down. How do I address the "develop social interactions with their peers" aspect of a statement or "develop self help skills", or "work independently" with the expectation of constant one-to-one? Once I sit another child with the group it is no longer one-to-one.'

Have you ever asked for clarification on this? It means that the TA is exclusively responsible for the child. The 1:1 applies to THEM, not the child. It means that in groups situations the 1:1 is focussed on the child who has them specified in their statement who supports them in the group. This might mean sitting next to them prompting every syllable, or it might mean standing well back monitoring the interaction and taking notes for additional work on reciprocation, or it might mean pre-preparing a couple of good role models to act in a way that will allow their charge to practise a skills. It simply means that that TA is utilised exclusively for that child.

'But the statement requires developing skills to work with peers. ... Can you see what I'm frustrated by?'

But this is where many children need their 1:1 most, to act as mentioned in previous paragraph.

'Following the letter of the law / statement would mean the child sitting one-to-one with the TA and no other children.'

No it doesn't. It means that the child has an adult exclusively focused on them with their individual needs at the heart of their actions. That sometimes will mean no action and just watching, but it still all about that child and so is still 1:1.

'I am not considering myself "more knowledgeable" than the "experts" I am saying the statements are often contradictory'

But schools get input into those statements. There is no need for them to be contradictory.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

'As a SENCo I will also say some statements are barmy in their contradictions or lack of understanding of how children with SEN still have a right to be part of a peer group.'

How does having 1:1 support deny a child the right to be a part of a peer group?

For many children with social and communication difficulties, the only way they could ever have a hope of accessing that group is with support, and targeted support, and specific teaching of social skills and then support to practise them. All of this requires an adult to be working with them and tracking the progress in minute detail, given the complexities of social interaction.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

And 'barmy' statements need to be addressed by the school before they become final statements, not just ignored once they arrived as being ridiculous.

That is unfair on the child, the parents, the system and often the TA.

[Inclusionist]

Read the Diss report Starlight. It is a researched phenomenon that children with a high volume of 1:1 TA support make slower progress that children with the same needs who are encouraged and supported to be more independent.

I have no idea why you would want somebody, who lets face it could have been on the checkouts at Tesco's the week before, constantly helicoptering around your child at times when they don't need it.

It is a misconception to think that the SEN Case Officer who put the statement together thought really, really carefully about exactly the type and amount of support the child would most benefit from. They really have not sat there and looked at the child's timetable and said ok.. they need help changing their shoes, that's 23 minutes a week.. somebody to set them up at their workstation at the start of each independent activity, that's 110mins a week....

They have just used 'hours' as a funding currency to reflect roughly how needy the child is. I know this to be fact because I sit on my LEA panel where this process is pulled together and proposed statements agreed. Most people on the panel who agree the hours have never even met the child.

[JesusInTheCabbageVan]

OP never posted under this nn before. And it was in the middle of the night. Just sayin...

I know what you mean...but what kind of hairy handed truck driver IS this? It must just be a very optimistic one - he's waiting for someone to come along and say: "Well, I don't have any questions about phonics but I have a panty-related question. Mine are very tight and sometimes the lace is scratchy on my willing thigh area. What can I do?"

If that doesn't bring the OP back, nothing will.

[LizzyDay]

I always imagined that 1:1 meant that the TA was there for that child only and therefore always had to be available (ie in the same room).

Not necessarily to be sitting beside the child and substituting for interaction from the teacher and other children, but just to provide appropriate support and importantly, be there if the child shows signs of distress / need and requires their intervention.

[insanityscratching]

But mrz dd's statement is exactly the same whether or not OFSTED are in so if it is legitimate for her TA to do reading recovery with children not in her class and nurture with other children (and remember I don't have a problem because dd is thriving) then surely school should have no problem with OFSTED seeing that. I'd imagine though that it's not legitimate because dd's statement doesn't mention that her TA is to be used to support children with literacy difficulties because dd has none and nurture group isn't appropriate for dd either and so isn't mentioned in her statement.
To be honest dd would have been better left unsupported because the TA wasn't on a par with her own TA and didn't work how dd is used to working so it was more a bum on a seat that working support anyway.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

'Read the Diss report Starlight. It is a researched phenomenon that children with a high volume of 1:1 TA support make slower progress that children with the same needs who are encouraged and supported to be more independent.'

I have read it. The conclusion is nothing of the sort. You are implying here that children with TAs cannot be encouraged and supported to be independent. That is almost certainly true in a system of unspecified provision with woolly and quantified support from untrained people who are utilised at whim by the class teacher.

If you read some of the research on ABA trained TAs in a mainstream classroom you'll see an extremely different picture, with the children often making progress at a faster rate than their peers.

However when that support is specified there is no room at all for the TA to be used flexibly to make up budget or staffing shortfalls in a school and so schools fight very hard against it.