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?

'Because you can't empathise. You can't see how things are in the classroom for busy school staff.'

I can empathise. I cam empathise with children and the parents of those children who are being failed by teachers who feel it is okay to deny a child what is written into their statement on the basis of their professional opinion.

The law doesn't empathise with busy classrooms or staff. In fact, the law exists BECAUSE there are busy classrooms and staff, so that the child's vital support is not lost in the competition for resources.

Good evening
A link to our guidelines
Peace and love eh?

getting even one child the support they need to fulfil their potential can never be a 'fucking stupid war', GetStuffezd.

I honestly cannot believe how many posters are ok with either breaking the law, or comfortable with the notion (and knowledge) that the law is regularly being broken.

Hmm, I accept deletion. But it takes a right cunt to slag off someone else's job! How would you feel, Olivia, if your professional Job was considered a "Web Fairy?" Or similar?!
Starlight, you have proved my point, obviously. Nobody else matters, but you. And the parents of children with SEN.

yes, agree to an extent.

sadly, I don't think that the child's vital support is lost in the competition for resources in many cases. Rather appropriated to a 'more useful/appropriate/necessary/valuable' situation.

but the definition of necessary/valuable/etc is very loose in the majority of those cases, and one that I just cannot agree with.

OliviaMumsnet Did someone report a post or do you have a siren that goes of in your bedroom when anyone uses particular swearwords?

Stripes, please read my previous posts.
I follow my fucking statemented kids' requirements to the letter.
I will also use my professional judgement as to when to allow them to continue alone.
I resent my judgment being shat on by the likes of starlight.
You know nothing about the lives my past SEN pupils are living now - I could not be prouder. I don't take credit, but I can hold my head up and know I did the best for them!
With my professional judgement...

It isn't that nobody else matters, but when addressing the inadequacies of any situation, isn't it logical and sensible to begin with adhering to the minimum that the law requires and building upwards from there?

But what if your professional opinion is that the letter of the statement is not required?

You really can't do both with a properly specified and quantified statement.

Your judgement isn't shat upon. I am reminding you that you have no business MAKING a judgement as to whether the child needs the provision made in a statement as that judgement has already been made through a process that you had the opportunity to input into and then protected by law.

Alright then.
What if the LAW (which is the whole fucking crux of your stupid, dogged inflexible argument) states that you shan't drive over 30mph?
But you have a medical emergency in your back seat and hospital is 60 miles away?
PLEASE! Please tell me if this a situation where you'd find your own interpretation of the law? Because I might cry with joy. Because you might realise that people make judgements based on what they deem best at the time.

And I realise us teachers are half witted, knuckle dragging half wits.... But still...

your third sentence is not necessarily compatible with your first sentence.

Zzzz - that's a fairly low card to play?
You'd think after my discussion on this thread that I'd speak badly of my pupils? I think you know I wouldn't, but took a cheap opportunity. How nice of you.

even I would agree with diverting 1:1 TA support if it was a life-or-death situation...

however, getting back to the actual argument, without ridiculous diversions - why do you think you are in any way qualified to alter a Statement which has been drawn up by a diverse panel of experts?

what part of teacher training covers SALT, OT, even SN and SEN to any great degree? (I am a teacher, btw, so a redundant question)

But it's a LAW!!!! And LAWS can't be broken, zzzz. starlight has told us so, countless times!

Gets It is actually incredibly important how you use language with regards to disability and your wording, even if accidental, merited an apology.

I'm not going to get into the statement debate, but I have just waded through most of the TES linked thread. Admittedly there are a few shocking posters on there, but most of them are teachers moaning about hating things such as APP, etc. This is just the administration paperwork crap that many teachers hate. Every teacher I talk to complains about the unnecessary paperwork and box ticking we have to do, so hats off to them for admitting it; it doesn't make them bad teacher. APP is box ticking, so telling parents about it is showing them the box ticking complained about by OPs title...
Many of the other complaints are about hating SLT jumping on currently fashionable bandwagons and teachers having take on new and unproven initiatives; again this doesn't make them bad teachers.
"teachers .... 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?" as a thread heading is inflammatory and making sweeping generalisations about all teachers based on confessions of hating something on the TES and just a few more worrying posts. To imply by the title all teachers are bad, making up assessments and don't believe in sub-levels ( and if you look at the national curriculum sub-levels don't exist, the level descriptors are just single numerical levels) is like saying several (insert ethnic minority) admitted disliking or X wrong doing, so all do the same.

You are PATHETIC.
And while I de-reg from MN, which is what I've been intending doing for a few days, you can sit here happy in the thought that I will be teaching hundreds of SEN kids for years to come, as an outstanding teacher in my outstanding school.
Luckily, I'm a bloody good teacher, I work in a UK top 100 school (thanks for the call today DfE!) and my kids' parents know I'm doing a great job.

Good luck debating the minutiae of this thread, I genuinely hope you achieve what you're hoping for.

Actually I don't.

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, bringing in extreme hypothetical and rare situations to try and justify behaviour in what is a usual, regular reality.

Daily use of the TA to support a disruptive child at the expense of the child who has that support written into their statement is hardly on a par.

However if you find it difficult to tell the difference you could simply inform the parents of the child who is losing out, and they can decide whether it merits taking the issue further.

I've read the beginning and the end of this thread ... no way can I read the whole thing. Is it really about whether a child statemented for full time support should have times when the TA is not working right there with him, or have I misunderstood?