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?

Academies, admissions and the non-funded Statement (no 'Higher Needs' ie above 6K) could be a worrying aspect to all this...

starlight all schools in an LA used be provided with some services from the LA (e.g. education welfare). overall schools in affluent areas used the services the least. schools in the most deprived areas the most. it was effectively a cross subsidy between rich and poor areas.

now the money is cut up and given to the schools. but if you are in a poor area you used more of the LA resources but only get a proportionate amount of the money i.e. less than the services you used.

10% of the children in DPs school have a social worker so there are many needs and little money to pay for it.

starlight

the pot of money DPs school were supposed to use for SN funding for high needs was not large enough.

so no schools in the area got what they were due.

so I don't think your information can be correct across the country.

What Services in your LA are defined as Traded Services YourMy?

Our LA has retained some services as Non-Traded.

regards I am not a teacher. thank god. so I don't know. how come?

and there are lots of legal entitlements to cash in a school.

no ones needs trump anyone else's.

e.g. employees of the school have a legal right to be paid.

HTs do the best they can, with what they have in terms of skilled staff, money, their own time.

but it clearly will never be enough when talking about children's education. nor should it.

If you look on the SN boards YouAre a lot of people do not rate a lot of the LA 'Block Provision' (services) anyway.....

'the pot of money DPs school were supposed to use for SN funding for high needs was not large enough.'

Imagine if a company used this argument to justify not meeting basic legal health and safety requirements?

It's a non-argument. Provision specified in statement, school MUST deliver it. That is the law, and it is there to protect vulnerable children from becoming the collateral in a battle for funds between the LA and schools.

If school cannot meet their legal obligations for ANY reason, they need to make sure the Local Authority are aware of this in writing in order to cover themselves when the parent (having been informed by the school that they cannot deliver their child's statement) takes the Local Authority to court.

YouAre I'm not a teacher either.

There was justification from it, I read some of it, contained in Cabinet, School's Forum Meetings Minutes and reports etc. Would have to do a lot of digging though to retrieve that information now.

IMO you'd be better off with a 50% cut in funding and able to purchase services independently than having to put up with waste of space Local Authority admin-intense, outcome negligent LA services, but that is just my opinion and not backed up by law though hugely by research.

but the statements do not say the child must have 15 hours of 1-1.

so the school does need to provide that.

Starlight Heard any more about the Individual SEN Budgets (with regards to the reform)?

YouAre Depends on the Statement as to what they say. Some do quantify hours of 1 to 1 support.

starlight yes the LA is wasteful. but the new system is worse for schools like DPs than the one it replaces............................

YouAre I'm not sure. I like that schools have more direct funding, in one way, as Statements are not updated quickly enough and can be difficult to get. Direct Funding is more responsive...

Lack of ring-fenced funding could be an issue though....

'but the statements do not say the child must have 15 hours of 1-1. so the school does need to provide that.'

Absolutely. The school only have to provide what it says in the statement. If it does not specify 1:1 I can't see that such a fairly expensive resource would be a priority for a schools budget.

However, where a child's statement DOES specify 1:1 though, teachers on here have confirmed that it is not being delivered using many of the arguments here as well as lack of funds.

THAT is breaking the law.

Discussion has moved on but I would like to say that I am very concerned that teaching staff appear to be ignorant of the legal position with regard to specifying and quantifying provision.

See relevant case law: www.ipsea.org.uk/apps/content/HTML/?id=113

It is accepted that there are 'a few bad apples' but what we are concerned about most of all is the fact that most of the flouting of the law is done in the erroneous belief that staff are using their 'professional judgement' and who believe themselves to be martyrsoutstanding.

Perhaps you would also consider this behaviour 'realistic', given the financial constraints, on a geriatric ward? The statement refers to an individual child in the same way that a medical prescription refers to an individual rather than anyone who happens to be on the ward at that time. It would not be acceptable for a nurse to decide to take the, say, pain relief or sedation prescribed for Mrs Smith and give it to Mrs Jones because in her non-expert opinion Mrs Jones looks like she needs it more. It is not acceptable to behave in this way but falsify/fail to update the written record or inform experts/relatives of your actions. Perhaps you would think this OK if the nurse had other patients with other needs to, or if Mrs Jones was noisy and disruptive, constantly getting out of bed, whereas Mrs Smith was bed-ridden and passive?

btw stop referring to 'our' children as 'your' children - this is both confusing and creepy.

Oh, and definitely don't say 'I love my children' - you did not 'love' them before they joined your class and you will not 'love' them when they leave - I think you will find that parental love lasts longer than an academic year.

Regards I was on an Personalised Budget consultation group but seem to have been chucked off .

lack of money throughout the system is the issue.

but DP cannot change that.

you are both looking at one part of a school. but actually doing DPs job involves many different rights. and so many things that don't work properly. and realistically, he cannot fix underfunded SN more than underfunded SWers.

it is an imperfect juggling act. and very different than the role of a parent.

not saying that does not involve imperfect juggling

You've dropped all the balls though when you are saying you are effectively being 'forced' to break the law.

he is not breaking the law.

the police are not coming to arrest him
no one is taking him to court.
no one has made a single complaint about SN provision in his school.

he is turning about a failing school. everyone is very please with his work.

YouAre Pleased he is not breaking the law.

What would he do though, if a child joined, who had a Statement which specified more 1 to 1 support than he was prepared / able to give?