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?

That LA policy could work or may not. I expect the Statements were tailored to suit. The policy does sound a bit 'blanket' though, which is worrying.

It will be interesting to see how the new funding legislation changes things. My child never had more than 16 hours of exclusive 1 to 1 support, even though he received substantially more than 6k of funding. Not sure he received much of the other types of support either. Something does not add up.

'Creative use' of the resources indeed.

Inclusion They are words, guidelines. They don't override the Education Act.

I think it might be worth pointing out here that very very few children actually have 1:1 specified. But where they do it MUST happen.

Examples of where at child has NOT got 1:1 specified:

School to be provided with Band E funding to support X
X to have access to 1:1 support and small group work up to 15 hours
School to provide £7k of funding to support X or 20 hours
X will benefit from 6 hours 1:1

These essentially say 'Child needs support, probably costs this amount, do what you like'.

The MAJORITY of statements are written like this. In fact probably ALL statements that haven't been through the tribunal system are.

I personally think that the reason they aren't written better is because the school has failed the child by not raising it with the parents that the statements aren't specified and quantified as they are supposed to be, but ultimately, it is just mean, not actually law-breaking, and it allows the schools to use their resources flexibly.

'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'

This is a blanket policy and illegal by the way. If you have any close involvement in this I would run it through your legal team because I, would be submitting that document as part of my tribunal evidence if I was challenging the LA for provision in the statement.

I have an expectation on me to use my resources flexibly! I also have to justify value for money- so if Fred and George both need a sensory diet which one member of staff could deliver I would be shot for having two members of staff.

just mean You honestly think there are whole departments of people who have chosen to devote their professional lives to children with SEN who don't give a shit about children with SEN???

Why would you allow a proposed statement to pass through your fingers that stated:

'School to 15 hours worth of 1:1 funding for x'

Without ensuring the parents understood that this wording meant that legally the school won't actually have to give any 1:1 time to their child.

Why would you allow the parents to feel happy that their child is now getting 15 hours of 1:1 when they aren't?

That's what I mean about being mean.

You can legally use your resources flexibly if the wording of the child's statement means that you can't be held accountable legally for not doing.

If a child's statement says '15 hours 1:1 for child x, to be used exclusively for that child, and to support them in a 1:1 capacity when participating in group work led by another adult', there is no flexibility and your career is at risk for not breaking the law you too can use your legal entitlement to challenge this, not to mention your union.

"I have an expectation on me to use my resources flexibly! I also have to justify value for money- so if Fred and George both need a sensory diet which one member of staff could deliver I would be shot for having two members of staff."

Not if Fred's and George's statements each say they need the sensory diet on a 1:1 basis: you couldn't legally be shot or disciplined in any way. If you don't feel it's necessary, take legal steps to get their statements amended.

If a child's Statement is quantified by cost surely the school are accountable to spending that exact amount of money on the Statemented child's individual additional needs and be prepared to show this in Provision Mapping which is shared with the parents and other professionals. The quantified element is subject to change at Annual Review so it should be openly reviewed.

By the way, specifying support in statements by reference to banded funding is illegal. It doesn't mean anything in itself in terms of the support the child will actually receive, but what it does mean is that the LA could change the support by changing the funding available for that band without going through the formal process of amending the statement - which is not permissible. The statement should simply set out the provision the child needs without any reference to funding arrangements and who pays for what.

So surely if the Statement is only quantified by cost the school is still accountable to providing additional support to that cost to the individual child. The costs go down if the support is shared.

Oh, ok. Yes I agree that in my LEA there is regularly a discrepancy between what parents think a statement will provide compared to how schools are instructed to deliver support. There should be more discussion with parents about that during the statementing process.

I get a million quids worth of SEN funding and can sleep at night because I genuinely belive that the provision I have in place in my school meets the children's needs and no child is left behind. If a TA leaves suddenly and I have a child who I don't think is going to receive enough support I actually can't sleep at night, so please don't tell me I don't care, or just see it as a budgeting exercise. TBH the exception to this would be the G&T kids who get nothing. Really support for them should come out of the million quid too, but large as it sounds, that budget is actually incredibly tight.

School will have to be accountable for the funds spent on individuals additional needs with the new funding legislation if they want to apply for 'High Needs' funding. They have to be able to demonstrate they have spent 6k on an individual child's additional needs. So schools will have to get used to this.

I like this aspect of the reform.

Inclusionist You are not meeting their needs if you are not ensuring an accurate representation of a child's needs is made in the Statement. This damages their reputation.

nenny that exact thing happened in my LEA. They reviewed the Band Funding and put all children in a 'Resourced' place on a particular band despite the fact that many of them had been on more (and some less) before. I am now having to fight through the Review process to put them back up, as are many other settings, and we are not being very successful!!

The excerpt of the policy I posted clearly states that I am expected to meet the needs of children with SEN whether they are statemented or not through my pooled funding.

Costing is included in this representation of needs. Cost is not arbitrary. Accounts should exist. Someone will know how much is spent on individuals.

You are not meeting their needs if you are not ensuring an accurate representation of a child's needs is made in the Statement. This damages their reputation

Hold on a minute. Up thread I was too much of a dogsbody to have an opinion on what should be in their statement??

zzz the blind professor who taught me on my pgce would be massively offended by the idea he needed one to one support to travel to work. he wouldn't even hear of having a guide dog because he didn't 'need a bloody mutt to guide me'.

also let's be real - you don't spend 24hrs a day catching trains so even for that person it wouldn't be full time 1:1 needed.

also i do hope you all read about 'pooling' resources to meet the needs of all students in the lea extract given above.

thank goodness the lea sees that schools have a duty to ALL students with SEN not just the one's with the loudest parents.

Inclusionist I never said that. You should participate, not be in charge, or sit by passively. Team work where there is collective responsibility for outcome, individual responsibility to act with integrity concerning the information they give.

You have a duty to act in the interests of all the children you teach but accountability to each individual child with a Statement's parents and the LA, for the provision they have received.

'Sometimes I use my professional judgement and ask the TA to work with another group of children who are action or action + who have no TA support. I will always ensure that the statemented child is supported and has appropriate work. In the right circumstances, I believe that the child with the statement needs some breathing space from constant adult support and it's useful for them to try to work independently. There are some children however I would never leave alone.'

This is very, very wrong. Where a child's statement specifies hours of 1:1 provision it is certainly not the class teacher's place to decide to take those hours off that child and put them elsewhere. And actually, what you are doing is to cause the LEA to fail to provide what is set out in the statement and this is grounds for the child's parents to bring a judicial review. If this were happening to my child I would do exactly that. If there are children on School Action in your classroom who need statement then you need to try to get them their own 1:1 provision, not steal another child's.

We've just established that LEA extract is condoning illegal practice and at the next tribunal that LA face it is likely to be hauled into the evidence against them and will subsequently be changed.

That is if a parent is able to go to tribunal and not been duped into believing her child has provision he/she doesn't.

Bear in mind also, that the statementing and funding process is an internal closed loop. The statements are written by the LEA's employees and of course are written in such a way that allows them to fit in with how the LEA instructs schools to deliver support.

That is why not a single one of my 60 statements names exclusive 1:1 support.

And I am too much of a dogsbody to break into that cycle.

it's not illegal. the lea is writing the statments, providing the funding and setting the policies. are they breaking their own laws or are they just definining what they want their schools to do with their money for their students?

Inclusionist They do specify cost though...That is quantification which you are accountable for. You are telling me you do not know how much funding a Statement brings in? The HT will. There will be someone accountable for the cost. Otherwise the new legislation makes no sense.