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?

'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?'

How on EARTH would they know that there were children in that class having their statements ignored? Presumably, like every other parent, they would expect when their child comes to the school, the 1:1 in their statement would be adhered to and that the arrangements of the rest of the class were fulflilling the requirements of THEIR statements!?

Unless you specifically tell them when they look around 'well these kids all have 1:1 in their statements but we can't afford more/don'tlike to create independence/don't want to rock the boat with SLT think we know better'

Inclusionist It would be still helpful to point this out to parents (no 1 to 1 even if stated on Statement) if they didn't ask.

Parents need information to be able to make an informed decision. They might just assume you would meet the Statement, since it is a legal requirement. That child's funding will assume 1 to 1.

This is why the funds end up being eroded and everybody ends up with less. It makes it difficult then to get the funding when absolutely needed.

Cross post.

'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.'

I really don't understand your point. If a child's statement doesn't say 1:1 why would a special school put that in place as standard? That would be bonkers.

However, for many children who have been so badly failed by mainstream school but are too academically capable for the majority of special schools, they do get 1:1 support, at home, by their parents, who have had no choice but to remove them due to the continuous flouting of the law by the mainstream school and the consequential breakdown of placement. Assuming Home-school is a valid educational placement then I would point you there.

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

Great. Then legally you have a level of flexibility with regards to how you use those TAs.

Inclusionist Fund Banding. Ah yes. You need to show then how the funds have been spent (and how much of the funds on their child) to the parents to enable them to be fully informed (included in decisions as to Statement amendments) and the paperwork reflective of what is happening. How does your school do this?

so actually putting your child in ms school means expecting them to get even more support than they'd get in a special school? ms school is supposed to give more support than special school? that is crazy and not at all financially viable.

DS' SN school (where all the children need 32 hrs as entry requirements) does not work on a 1:1 basis. More like 1:5.

We are quite happy with that actually as there are only 10 in his class. He's at a Speech & Language unit.

A Statements funding is individual and for that child alone, there is no 'common pot'. Schools are accountable to the parents and LA to this end.

1:1 actually sounds horrendously over the top. i also don't see how it can possibly be called inclusion of any meaningful sense or how on earth that child copes when they leave school unless they're going to have a 1:1 support worker everywhere they go for the rest of their life.

'so actually putting your child in ms school means expecting them to get even more support than they'd get in a special school? ms school is supposed to give more support than special school? that is crazy and not at all financially viable.'

I don't know where you got that from. MS school or Special School the school is expected to deliver the provision as is outlined in the statement.

I have no idea whether this would look like more or less in a mainstream school. The financial viability is neither here nor there, quite apart from the fact that investment in children with SN at the earlier stages save hundreds of thousands of pounds in the social care budget when they are adults.

But that really isn't the issue here. The issue here is that it if is specified in the child's statement, the child must receive that provision. No excuses. No justifications. No whinging. No reallocation. No breaking the law.

there are not special schools where there is a member of staff for every single child there yet as someone has said the special school their child goes to has f/t 1:1 need statements as an entry requirement.

so quite clearly they are getting more expensive and intense provision in ms than special and quite clearly it is unneccessary if special schools can provide tailored, effective provision on higher ratios.

i can't even see the benefit of 1:1. christ i've worked on secure units for children with mental health problems and huge behavioural issues and we didn't do 1:1.

'1:1 actually sounds horrendously over the top. i also don't see how it can possibly be called inclusion of any meaningful sense or how on earth that child copes when they leave school unless they're going to have a 1:1 support worker everywhere they go for the rest of their life.'

It is exactly THIS kind of attitude that makes it all the more important that a child's provision is protected in law.

You are not expected to be an expert on this subject, and your opinion here shows that you are not. That's okay. People who ARE have set the terms of the provision.

in what circumstances really can a child need an adult with them and solely with them and providing no support to anyone else ALL the time? what kind of condition or level of need do you have to have to get a statement like that? genuine question. i'm actually wanting to know how bad things can be to need 1:1 support constantly.

'i can't even see the benefit of 1:1.'

Which is exactly why a panel of experts make the decision and not you.

swallowed

1:1 actually sounds horrendously over the top. i also don't see how it can possibly be called inclusion of any meaningful sense or how on earth that child copes when they leave school unless they're going to have a 1:1 support worker everywhere they go for the rest of their life.

I don't disagree with this. I don't agree with it either. My child certainly does not need a dedicated 1 to 1 TA now, or for the rest of his life. In the earlier days he had more 1 to 1, but not continuous. Would have been able to cope with less 1 to 1 if more reasonable adjustments were made, he did in pre-school.

The not agreeing entirely, is that some children may need the 1 to 1 and if their Statement details it, it should at least be made available if needed. If not needed this should be communicated. This is not consistently the case it seems....

Swallow I can answer your question. And in detail.

However I do not want to detract from the theme of this thread which is that teachers do not have the power, nor the expertise to make executive decisions about a child's statement provision or whether or not to ignore it.

If they can't see the purpose of an intervention or support, that is okay, as they are not expected to. They are not THAT kind of an expert. If they find it stupid or unnecessary they must assume that it is because they are not knowledgeable about that aspect of the child's need or provision.

If they like, they can address their knowledge gap through self-study, communication with the experts or CPD.

They don't have to.

But, they DO have to deliver what is on a child's statement.

If 1 to 1 is only ever made available and the usual practise is to deploy them elsewhere, there is also a danger of them not being available if needed.

It is really not right not to have accurate records of what is actually happening. That is the records should include how much support is been taken up by the individual child who possesses a Statement.

I agree that 1:1 isn't generally needed in special schools where they can offer small classes and specialist teachers, TAs and therapists available all day ever day. But if that is what is on the statement when the child goes there, it means that someone has thought about the special school and decided that 1:1 is still needed. If, once the child has settled in, there is a mutual decision after full discussion at an annual review meeting that 1:1 is no longer needed, then the statement should be amended. What should not happen is that the school just unilaterally decides to withdraw it.

swallowed, putting the child into mainstream doesn't mean getting more support than they would in special. The point is that special schools offer small classes and specialist teachers which mainstream can't do, so if a child with SEN is in the mainstream they may need more 1:1 support to compensate for that.

for example if the child has a hearing impairment and signed, they would need a full-time TA who could sign if they were to attend a mainstream school.

In a signing special school, that child would need no 1:1 (unless their statement specified it there of course).

"1:1 actually sounds horrendously over the top. i also don't see how it can possibly be called inclusion of any meaningful sense or how on earth that child copes when they leave school unless they're going to have a 1:1 support worker everywhere they go for the rest of their life."

1:1 does not prevent inclusion. It usually means having the TA (or whoever) with the child to help them manage in mainstream classes and ensure that they derive full benefit from them. It may mean some work on their own away from the rest of the class, but if the TA is the only person working with that child that in itself would be wrong.

Also, the fact that a child has 1:1 on the statement at, say, age 7, does not meant that they will work that way throughout their school life. In fact, a good school will work with the parent as the child gets older to help the child achieve independence, and the 1:1 can be part of that until s/he is no longer needed.

By the way on paper it was claimed that my child did receive full time 1 to 1, when actually he was working with a TA who supported a group of children for some of the time and with the whole class / school at other times, with teacher and TA present or just two TAs and class.

Took a long time to officially establish what was actually happening. A lot of woolly yes but standing back (and supporting other children) is still 1 to 1.

Thought you might like to read these excerpts from my LEA's policy.

Based on the cost of an LSA this £6k could buy 16 hours of support per week although schools would be expected to use resources creatively and avoid an individual member of staff working closely with an individual pupil for long periods of time

Within an individual school, the LA expects funding from all sources to be pooled. Schools are expected to manage their budgets appropriately in order to meet the needs of all pupils with SEN/AEN, whether they have a statement of SEN or not. This means schools have maximum flexibility in making appropriate arrangements and ensuring value for money. It is anticipated that use of the Audit Commission’s Value for Money Resource Pack for Schools will assist in identifying the use of resources, tracking pupil progress and making value for money judgements.

These are the things they suggest that we might spend the pool of funding on:

• Differentiated work in the classroom and homework including production of materials.
• Teacher oversight with stringent measurement of impact of interventions delivered.
• Support in the use or care of specialist equipment.
• Support to manage medication
• Access to adult supervision when needed including during PE, breaks or off site activities to ensure safety.
• Access to an individual work station where necessary.
• Access to aids, adaptations and equipment to facilitate access to disabled pupils.
• Regular contact with parents/carers to support progress and parental confidence. Use of the Achievement for All structured conversation is recommended.
• Access to support services as appropriate to the pupil’s needs. See Appendix B for more details.
• Implementation of programmes designed by therapists e.g. speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and release of staff to be trained by therapists.
• Access to personal support for part of each day including toileting and feeding.
• Access to in class support on a daily basis e.g. within a small group in the classroom.
• Withdrawal for intensive individual or small group teaching for specific programmes for short periods.
• Delivery of the National Curriculum at a slower pace with an emphasis on basic skills.
• Opportunities for practical experiences to support reinforcement and over learning.
• A personalised curriculum with regular monitoring.
• Termly planning with support services and therapists including systematic and regular communication, joint target setting, an agreed Lead Professional/Key Worker following the Early Support principles with regular Team Around the Child (TAC) meetings.
• Support to attend school trips and other extra curricular activities.
• Access to alternative provision, which may be off site