Teachers do not adhere to Statemented 1 to 1 support, do not believe in sub-levels, make APP assessments up....How much of what parents are told by schools about teaching is a box ticking exercise?

[Regards]

Following on from this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/1859219-Im-a-teacher-and-happy-to-answer-any-questions

and this:
community.tes.co.uk/tes_primary/f/36/t/381051.aspx?pi2132219857=1

I realised I was incredibly gullible when my DC first started school. What exactly should we believe concerning what the teachers tell us, how much is a PR job to cover up the ugly truth?

Why are the SMT so difficult to engage with? Don't some of them teach too?

School now will receive more direct funding for SEN. Do you think they will spend it wisely?

How Starlight is that protecting a career?

In that senario there was no one to one ta. Just one teacher not getting support for children with ebd.

You seem to think it is all so simple.

Personally I think the physical safety of children trumps poetry much everything else.

SEN statements are not poorly funded. They are funded to the level required to ensure that the child received an adequate education. One minute less and they would not receive it. It they would, the statementing officer would have written one minute less. They aren't into spending money for nothing.

So SEN statement provision IS adequately funded. It is everything else that isn't (if a school is struggling) and that is a matter for management and LAs to address, not shrug and steal from the children who have been awarded provision enshrined in law.

Thorough assessments aren't quick though.

MY DC's Statement was quantified by cost, sum of money.

Some smt are great and some don't know what to do so they pass it back to the class teachers to sort out.

I don't think the budgets are big enough and this is where the government wins. They tell everyone the money is there when it isn't so they can wash their hands of it and blame the schools.

This then leads to a perversion of what the system was meant to achieve.

If the TA is there as a class TA, then I imagine it is reasonable for the teacher to use them any way they see fit, even dealing with ebd pupils.

If they are there as another child's 1:1, they cannot be used as the teacher sees fit and must fulfil the requirements of the statement.

Soap Our school's budget wasn't even all spent last year. Good job there wasn't claw back!

Most children with sen aren't statemented though.

Random there is a difference between thorough and doing things at a glacial speed because you can't get an appointment with a particular specialist for x number of months.

I could have told then what the specialists said anyway for all the good the assessments were.

^them

I don't know how many times I have to say this on this thread.

I do not pilfer one child's ta to support another. End of.

However a number of scenarios have been posted and I am explaining why they have occurred. You cannot ignore the reasons behind a situation just because you don't like it. I appreciate you would like to believe it's because the teachers are all evil but it really isn't the case.

I don't believe teachers are evil.

I think they believe that they are doing their best under difficult circumstances and that it is perfectly reasonable, accepted and even encouraged by SLT to pilfer Cameron-the-Compliant's 1:1 to stop Agatha-the-Aggressive from tearing up all of the resources the teacher stayed up until 2am creating for the rest of the class.

It's still breaking the law though and totally unacceptable and if Cameron's parents found out they could sue, though no-one from the school would tell them about it.

I am a very qualified LSA. I have a great relationship with the child I work with (not just my say so, also according to the teachers, SENCO, OT, ST and the child themselves!). The child is making huge progress. I spend every minute I am on the site (including my breaks, barely get a wee...), many minutes at home and lots of my own energy, belongings, money, resources doing the best I can for my charge. I work really hard, try really hard, get results.

But I am afraid the parents of the child I support have got so much into "fight" mode that I may well quit. I have not had a positive communication from them in the time I have been there. But daily negative gripes, complaints, grumbles. I cannot stand it any more.

I am happy to admit that many of their queries are reasonable. But (1) there are ways and ways of asking things (I am a human, a please is nice!), (2) not every complaint should go to the LSA - if you don't like what the Head has done, please complain to him, not via me, (3) a little positive feedback from time to time would go a very long way.

Parents are right to work for their children, of course they are. They are right to ensure their children's needs they are met.

But please don't fight so much that you ruin what is working.

I am told the child's mother has said that she is delighted by my work. I wish I could see that in her attitude to me. I am no longer able to take a daily dose of criticism when I no I can do no more than I am.

About I could have replicated your post in the early years except the almost daily complaints were about my child. Parents often dreaded seeing one of the 2 TAs in the class coming towards them.

A lot of the complaints were simply concerning what was identified as my child's SEN and which the Statement dealt with. Concentration issues for example during whole class sessions. Sitting 'properly' when hypermobility was an issue.

I am not a particularly aggressive person, I like to avoid confrontation. Sometimes though it is very difficult. Thank God I managed to not lose my temper or burst into tears. Dread to think what I would have been called if I had...

There is NO excuse for rudeness from parents towards school staff or the other way around.

I'd sorry you're dealing with that About.

Why are they 'fighting' if you are demonstrably delivering and fulfilling all the statement requirements?

I think that a large part of the problem is that non-experts (including those with teaching qualifications) are not able to 'see' invisible disabilities. This is not a personal failing. However, in practice, when following legal prescription in a statement, the non-expert is not qualified to over-ride the prescription of the expert.

The comments suggest that there are children that really need 1:1 support (in a visible, easily observable way) and children that don't - in these cases expert diagnosis and observation of the child can be (because of practical considerations) overridden by the common sense ignorance/arrogance of non-expert teachers). This is not your call to make.

Invisible disabilities like dependence on support at all times ?... I'm not saying use the LSA/TA to do other jobs but sometimes it is in the child's best interests for the support to step away and only step back when needed. It's a fine line knowing when.

DS1 is now placed with LA funding in OOC indi ss. I cannot begin to recount the number of false statements and minimisation that we encountered prior to that. btw we had to endure the stress of DS1 being out of school for two terms, not to mention the expense of the reports necessary for tribunal.

DS2 is still at the school and so I have to maintain a working relationship with them. The problem that I have is that every time I see the senco/head I am reminded of the comments that he made to me in meetings ('trust me, I have 25 years experience, DS1 is definitely not dyslexic' (he is now placed in 'the leading' dyslexic specialist school.))

The main problem that I have is that all the teacher questionnaires submitted by DS1's CT were all wrong - I can live with the ADD/ASD but I have more difficulty with the APD. DS1 was investigated at GOSH and the objective results of audiological testing were in total contradiction with the answers of the CT. In reality, she had missed it all. She is a nice person and I am sure she has the best intentions of students at heart, but she seemed, in some circumstances, (eg upward referral for ADHD/ASD) to be given the final word (despite the objective testing suggesting this was flawed). She can't meet my eye. How do I deal with this?

mrz agree with the fine line aspect. My husband and I have always ultimately wanted independence from our DC. Even if this means attainment is slightly less than if there was more intensive support. However only if our child is coping emotionally with this. Teething problems I would expect but no more. Fine line indeed....Statements that are not rigorously updated are worthless though...and this needs the correct info.

mrz - we all know that there is the world of difference between stepping back and encouraging skills of independence and using a TA to support other students. Stop colluding in the argument that stepping back is always in the best interests of the statemented child. If it is not in the best interests of the statemented child it is nothing more than an excuse.

mrz - don't mean to be confrontational but I wish you luck claiming DLA on 'dependence on support' - this does not qualify as a disability whereas ASD/ADHD do and can and often are invisible to non-experts.