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?

they are spelling out loudly and clearly that they do trust schools to make decisions about how best to use the funding and how to ensure ALL sen children get their needs met.

i also think there may be a complete mismatch between what the lea means when it says 1:1 support and what the parent believes they mean.

swallowed Our LA accepts there will have to be costed Provision Mapping with the new legislation. I have read the reports concerned with 'roll out' Schools will be accountable also to the EFA.

LEAs have been told in no uncertain terms that they are legally required to quantify hours of 1:1 support. 1:1 support mean support only for the child specified in the statement.

i think we need the statementing system if this is where it's leading.

i can only see that it creates a competitive and selfish attitude and 'classes' children with sen into those with loud articulate parents and those without. with the former group wanting to hog all resources for their own children at the expense of the latter.

Inclusionist: "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!!"

So, where you aren't successful, I do hope you are encouraging parents to take it to tribunal and referring them to organisations like IPSEA and SOS SEN for help. Too often parents are in effect told there is nothing they can do, when that is simply not the case.

DS1 needed FT 1:1 support in his MS school. Of course, the LA was quite willing to continue this FT 1:1 support - even though we fought and fought to get him into a specialised school. We finally won after the date was set for tribunal. Now he is in a more suitable environment for his needs, he does not have 1:1 except for specific situations and that's fine as it's reflected in his statement.

He absolutely DID need FT 1:1 in MS. We literally handed him over to TA in the morning and he was handed off to us in the afternoon at the end of the school day. He had someone with him for breaks, outside play, even if he had to leave the room for the toilet (although generally the TA waited just outside the toilet area unless there was a problem). Why? DS1 was 4yo (and 5yo) with absolutely no sense of danger and was a runner (he still is, although the SS has implemented many many safety plans to contend with this). As soon as something upset him, caught his attention, flitted into his head, he would run off. And he has sensory problems, so he simply could not cope well in a busy classroom - every time he had anxiety or stress or upset, he ran out of the classroom. Or had a meltdown. Or would run and hide. Academically, he was actually on the G&T register at the school. But socially and emotionally, he struggled greatly.

He does much better now in his SS with a class size of 6 children, with a teacher and a TA. He still needs 1:1 in any transition, and any time he has to leave the classroom for safety reasons.

I will point out that this comment: There are teachers who signed up for a mainstream job who end up teaching children with significant SEN and some of them resent it. really upsets me. So they signed up for a mainstream job because they wanted all the perfect little children and not those with SENs? Really? Is that what you meant? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like. So any sympathy I might have for any teacher that views things like this has gone right out the window. Sounds like they'd rather these children be hidden away somewhere instead. That's not exactly a great reflection on teachers. Christ almighty, and these are the people you want us to trust to follow a child's statement?? Or want us to trust to use their best judgement even if they DON'T follow the statement? Not bloody likely.

"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."

Absolutely correct, up to a point. And that point is the parental right of appeal. That takes the process out of the closed shop and means that LAs actually have to obey the law rather than their own internal policies.

maybe teachers should go to tribunal for them? and wipe their arses whilst they're at it? teachers - lazy good for nothings who should do everyone's job and get told they're shit whilst they're at it.

Swallowed I never wanted to my child to be given a Statement of SEN. What does that make me?

I know exactly how each pound of that million quid comes in and how it is spent!! I am just saying that I am told to view it as a pool of funding, not ring-fenced blocks for individuals.

I respect your position is disagreeing with this approach- I am just trying to show you the framework I am required to operate within.

Inclusionist Why not share with the parents then? I'm a big girl I could take it.

swallowedAfly - sorry but that is nonsense. You are saying that because some parents are not able to fight for their child, then the ones that can should not be allowed to either?

All children who need hours of quantified support should be able to get them and if the evidence is there it can be done. I am sick of hearing this nonsense that parents who fight for their child are 'taking resources away' from other children. It's rubbish peddled by LEAs who want to get away with not providing resources and saving money and is designed to make parents turn on each other instead of expecting the LEA to do what the law says.

I don't disagree with any of that Inclusionist. It is wrong but how on earth can anyone actually challenge it when we are still at the very basic level of simply teachers not overriding the statements that ARE specified.

First a parent has to go through the statementing process which is all about how badly affected the person they love most in the world is.

Then they get a document which is meaningless and have several months of going to and fro with the LA in disbelief that they can be so thick as the just don't seem to get it.

Then they realise that the LA is actually pretty crafty and their weasel wording was deliberate.

Then they have to research and research whether they are legally right as well as morally.

Then they have to enlist help from advocates or solicitors to navigate their way through a system that pretends to be simple to avoid having to award legal aid, but is actually pretty complex and will without doubt face a LA's solicitor in tribunal.

Then they have to get the evidence for what their child needs, which incurs the cost of independent witnesses who (unethically imo) charge a bomb for their tribunal understanding.

Meanwhile the LA collects evidence about how any identified need are actually NOT education but other things, most commonly and easily, parenting.

Then they actually have to go to tribunal and face the people who will be working with their child in a hostile situation where their child's needs are unpicked as well as their credibility and integrity.

Then they are awarded properly specified provision including 1:1.

If paying a solicitor this and independent witnesses can cost a good £20k for which they are not compensated.

Then in week 2, the class teacher shares or reallocates using many of the justifications on this thread and doesn't tell the parents.

swallowed" "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?"

LAs don't make the law, governments do. Just because the LA sets a policy does not mean that it accords with the law. They don't get carte blanche to do what they like, and it's not their money, it is community charge payers' money, so they have to use it in accordance with the law.

^The cost of what an individual Statemented child is receiving that is, if cost is the quantified element of their Statement.

Blanket policies are illegal swallowedfly

presumably you won't be sending your 8yo to catch trains on his own any time soon though

she is sharing it with you regards - but it's the LEA's policy so really it's the lea you should expect to share rather than the poor bloody teacher whose busy trying to actually educate your child.

is anything not illegal in your world starlight? blanket policies are illegal.

Swallowed: "maybe teachers should go to tribunal for them? and wipe their arses whilst they're at it? teachers - lazy good for nothings who should do everyone's job and get told they're shit whilst they're at it."

Who has ever advocated that? What teachers can do is to let parents know that, if the statement is inadequate, they can go to tribunal, and they can maybe go so far as to give them the phone numbers for IPSEA, SOS SEN and the Civil Legal Advice helpline. Is that really so much to ask?

I will point out that this comment: There are teachers who signed up for a mainstream job who end up teaching children with significant SEN and some of them resent it. really upsets me. So they signed up for a mainstream job because they wanted all the perfect little children and not those with SENs? Really? Is that what you meant? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like. So any sympathy I might have for any teacher that views things like this has gone right out the window.

Breaks my bloody heart and I don't think you should be allowed to be a teacher if you have this attitude. Sadly I can't pretend it doesn't exist and it sometimes makes me want to run back to a Special School. Rest assured that, for my part, I would put anybody who let an attitude like this impact on a child on capability like a shot.

I'm sorry I upset you- it was an unsensitive thing to write on a thread full of parents.

*insensitive

oh and my professor would also be offended by that tokenistic comment about blind people achieving 'some degree of independence'. he has total independence.

it's really odd you know -i think i'd rather have this conversation and it would go very differently with people who actually have disabilities and have grown up with sen rather than parents. they'd bring a really useful light to things.

certainly all the people i've known, worked with, studied with etc don't come across in the way you are all portraying your children and i cannot imagine any of them every having or having wanted 1:1 constant care in the classroom.

Swallowed Blanket policies are illegal though regarding Statements of SEN. Stands to reason as S stands for Special.

Section 324(2) and (3) of the Education Act 1996, which provide that the
statement must contain such information as may be prescribed and mustspecify the educational provision to be made for the purpose of meeting the needs identified in the statement;