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?

Parents need to be able to trust that these statements are being followed

I suppose this depends how much you are prepared to trust your statement. I worked in EBD for many years and you have no idea how many statements I have seen that just outline behaviour as primary need and skirt round pinning down underlying causes. This is often because the child has not managed to engage in any assessments. The initial statement just reads like they are extremely naughty- you wouldn't want professionals to just go along with that and stop looking for the underlying causes of the behaviour would you??

'trouble is the demand is always on the teacher rather than higher up.'

This is because it is the TEACHER that is covering up the facts. If he/she shared the information, parents do have a level of power to change things. By hiding what is going on, you are denying them that power.

SO before a parent can even get anywhere, they have to challenge the teacher and provide evidence that they are lying. Have you any idea how unbelievably difficult that is for a parent who hands their child over to your care every day, and how desperately frustrating and depressing it is?

'but systemic change doesn't come from being the squeekiest wheel about one child. the efforts need to be wider scale and about every child.'

But parent have no power if teachers either pretend the law isn't being broken, or justify it's breaking as reasonable according to their professional opinion, or funding cuts.

'That is what has happened over and over again on this thead- any teacher who has suggested that they might actually be well placed to contribute to decisions about what will help a child to progress has been called arrogant.'

You are arrogant if you think you are above the law. You are arrogant if you think you can just make changes to a statement all on your own when the details of that statement are put together by multi-agency professionals who are experts in their field and know more than teachers about the various aspects of the child's needs.

'If we blindly followed the statement they arrived with how could we have ever worked out how to personalise their curriculum?'

Seriously?

What does that even MEAN. Why can't you personalise a child's curriculum using the support outlined in their statement?

'Every kid would come in with a 'full' statement which would name 35hrs but from day one they would be on 1:4 because those were the ratios we ran in our classes.'

That is absolutely and utterly disgraceful behaviour and I hope to God that you informed those childrens' parents.

Inclusionist, it is indeed the case that many statements as written by local authorities are rubbish and I expect teachers in special schools do have to sort things out for themselves. But some are not, particularly when parents have had to go through tribunals which frequently means that there has been extensive input from independent experts and the experts on the tribunal panels themselves. In that situation it would certainly be arrogant for schools to assume they can ignore the statement and that they must know best, particularly when the child has only just turned up in their school. In fact, I have heard the best special schools say that they particularly welcome children who have come to them after tribunals because there is so much in-depth quality information in the reports and the statement which they find really helpful.

Also, so so often paperwork would arrive that made a child out to be horrific because absolute worst case scenario has had to be painted to get the statement. Then, when the child arrived, they would be unrecognisable from the paperwork.

I remember one boy who's paperwork made him out to be SO destructive and dangerous (and we couldn't observe him ourselves in school because he was already permanently excluded) that we actually re-arranged the whole school to create a super high ratio just for him. From day one he was a lamb and we NEVER had a serious incident. Within 4 weeks he was in a regular class on a 1:4 ratio.

We never again assumed the child would match the statement.

'That is what has happened over and over again on this thead- any teacher who has suggested that they might actually be well placed to contribute to decisions about what will help a child to progress has been called arrogant.'

They are well placed and they have an opportunity to do so at annual review time or in contribution to the original statement to ensure there is some flexibility built in or that it specifically states 'class teacher to decide'.

What you are NOT well placed to do, is ignore what IS written in the statement. That is outside of your remit.

"'Every kid would come in with a 'full' statement which would name 35hrs but from day one they would be on 1:4 because those were the ratios we ran in our classes.'": I must say, that does worry me. That means that the school was taking funding for 1:1 support for each of those children but wasn't using it. Sounds actively dishonest to me. Most local authorities will consult schools before they finalise statements as to whether they are actually able to deliver the support in the statement. Was this school actually saying yes, it could deliver 1:1, when it had no intention whatsoever of doing so?

That is absolutely and utterly disgraceful behaviour and I hope to God that you informed those childrens' parents

Starlight obviously the parents came round on visits and attended entry meetings before they named the school???

Never, ever in 8 years in a Special School did I hear a parent ask why their child didn't have 1:1. They trusted us to set the school up to meet the needs of the children. I guess ofsted agreed as that school is Outstanding and particularly priased for the work it does promoting the childrens independence.

Swallow, have you seen THIS school?

nenny Special School funding works differently.

Inclusionist
paperwork would arrive that made a child out to be horrific because absolute worst case scenario has had to be painted to get the statement. Then, when the child arrived, they would be unrecognisable from the paperwork.

I don't agree with this either. Teachers IME have seemed to want me to collude with this type of behaviour. I refused. They looked worried and couldn't meet my eye. Still got funding, probably more than if I had gone along with an inaccurate (obviously unbelievable and exaggerated) request.

I stand by having integrity, it is vital. its the reason I started the thread. A Statement can affect a child's reputation, well it can if people read it....

But if you are sat on a table of four, all on the same academic level (delayed in my sons case) then it is obvious that TA will be used for the entire table surely. She was there to support my son but I can see how she was able to be used in this scenario for all the children on his table.

My gripe was when she was removed from the classroom entirely.

I was fortunate I guess that I had already had a relationship with the school through DS1 & they knew (I hope ) that I wasn't being a pain for the sake of it. When it all erupted over his emergency annual review I was able to have an open adult conversation with the HT about it.

I did make sure that my communication went through the HT after that. I'm interested to know what extra training school senco's get actually. Ours (whilst a great teacher) was totally ineffective for us.

"I remember one boy who's paperwork made him out to be SO destructive and dangerous (and we couldn't observe him ourselves in school because he was already permanently excluded) that we actually re-arranged the whole school to create a super high ratio just for him. From day one he was a lamb and we NEVER had a serious incident. Within 4 weeks he was in a regular class on a 1:4 ratio. "

OK, IF you consulted the parents and they agreed. What bothers me about this is that what happens in school isn't necessarily the whole picture. Time and again a child just about manages to hold things together in school whilst massive stresses and anxieties build up, and they are all then let out when he reaches home and feels safe. You really need to know that that is not the case before making any decisions about withdrawing support.

'I suppose this depends how much you are prepared to trust your statement'

Not really. Parents have the power to influence and contribute to the statement. If they don't trust it there are legal channels available to them for challenging it.

You have to assume as a teacher that the child's statement contains the provision that the parents believe to be essential, and you have to TELL them if something in your working conditions prevents you from fulfilling it as there are legal channels available to them to challenge that too.

She then takes him back to his classroom and leaves him to choose from the healthy breakfast options on a side table in the class room.

Uh oh, Starlight, his TA left him!! And when he's in The Rise School he's on a ratio of 3:8 in his class. Call Ofsted.

'The initial statement just reads like they are extremely naughty- you wouldn't want professionals to just go along with that and stop looking for the underlying causes of the behaviour would you??'

I would expect a teacher to do their best to meet the needs of the child using their training and expertise WITHOUT dismissing the support provision outlined in the statement.

I can't see how the two can conflict.

If he was in the Rise School his statement wouldn't say 1:1

Honestly, what are you talking about?

Inclusionist: "Special School funding works differently."

It doesn't, you know. It may be that in the past there hasn't been specific funding allocated to the statement according to the needs of each specific child, but it remained the case that the special school got more funding than mainstream precisely because it was supposed to be able to provide things like 1:1 support when that was necessitated by the terms of individual children's statements.

Under the new funding regime, special schools get a basic £10,000 delegated per child, and top-up funding on top of that if the child's needs warrant it. Given that full time 1:1 support certainly costs more than £10,000 per year then current funding works as I said.

'Starlight obviously the parents came round on visits and attended entry meetings before they named the school???'

Parents chose the school in which they would like their child's statement to be DELIVERED, not ignored.

'Never, ever in 8 years in a Special School did I hear a parent ask why their child didn't have 1:1. They trusted us to set the school up to meet the needs of the children. I guess ofsted agreed as that school is Outstanding and particularly priased for the work it does promoting the childrens independence.'

Why on earth would a parent ask for a 1:1 if it wasn't identified as a support NEED and written in the child's statement?

1:1 isn't needed for every child.

But having a 1:1 isn't synonymous with dependence by the way....

Yes alright, it is still the same system of place funding and top up- but in mainstream ALL of that money is just for the named child. In Special the top up is much, much more because the money also has to run the school.

I defy you to find me a special school where the standard ratio is 1:1 or where 1:1 is held up as a good model. It is a last resort other than for physical and medical needs. Another exception would be for ASD where intensive interaction was in place.

Starlight if a parent comes to a school and sees classes running on 1:4 or 1:3 ratio and still names the school you have to assume they are happy with that?

None of my statements do say 1:1 support with a TA.

Actually mine don't even have hours on them any more. They say 'BandX'. Which means £x worth of support which will have x outcomes at the end of x key stage.'