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?

I meant many of the parents we have are themselves sen and wouldn't understand or be able to challenge conclusions properly.

1 to 1 is one of those anomalies because statements USED TO be measured by the time a child needed support. This was often just based on medical needs, or keeping him/her entertained so the rest of the class could study without interruption.

It was based on what was convenient to teachers.

Now they have worked out that this is not the best way to ensure a child with disabilities can reach their full potential and so children are provided with inclusive education. This essentially does away with 1 to 1 support as by its very nature it is based on the idea that children are taught inclusively in group.

Most of us know that this is the way children like to be taught, they don't like to be separated and work on their own (exceptional cases only). It also happens that inclusive education not only enhances the childrens lives and access to education, it can save a bit of money as children can be taught together. It is a win-win situation, actually a triple win as teaching methods have become much more child focussed in general and this has benefited all children.

OK it's not perfect but it's a heck of a lot better, for everyone, than segregation.

soap Pleased you have cleared that up.

passego I have no problem with that model of inclusion, if it works.

Accurate truthful reporting is what is needed IMO. If a child's 1 to 1 is not used as a 1 to 1 it should be reported truthfully and their progression monitored accurately. I don't think this is happening.

I'm about to be that parent too as I have a little boy with sen. I think most parents of sen children have to be.

Most often the class teacher is caught between a rock and a hard place. Being really honest may mean essentially calling the head a liar or making them out to be less than honest. That's assuming that as the class teacher you have all of the information anyway.

Calling a head out like that will cause serous problems. In some cases a swift exit without the possibility of working as a teacher again. Stiff penalty with no real benefit for anyone.

Before your say we should stand up for the children in our care. We do. By doing the best for them with the resources that we have and by lobbying goverment through our unions. Its just that no one ever listens.

soap I get you but the TES thread suggests a lot of lobbying is about teacher's needs and not children's.

The point is that on the statement it is called one to one for the purposes of quantifying the money spent. It isn't intended as that at all. They should simply change it then people wouldn't be under the illusion.

It is absurd in any case as what child is autistic (for example) for 15 hours only? The suddenly stop and get better for the rest of the time?

I think most parents understand that their child wouldn't thrive if they were truly one to one for 15 hours and then left to fend for themselves for the other 15. Schools work it out so that resources are shared and children can work in groups, perhaps this needs to be explained to parents better, or perhaps they should change the statementing system.

I would ignore the tes. Only people who read it are student teachers or people who need a job and don't have the Internet.

Unions do fight for staff. We pay them to after all but there are many campaigns purely about education. Many fall into the category of best for both staff and pupils.

The problem is, they can be a bit rubbish about getting that message across.

passedgo The Statementing system has been changed. A school will now provide the initial 6K funding for additional needs. This equates to 12 hours genuine 1 to 1 support (not group work or floating TA). After that High Needs funding needs to be applied for.

The cost comes down if a TA works to support a group of children. Schools will receive extra funding up front for this.

How will this extra funding be allocated? Not all schools have the same levels of sen children.

Regards I don't understand. It equates to the financial equivalent of 12 hours 1 to 1 support or it equates to children having to have 12 hours of 1 to 1 support if that's in their statement? Or is it just whatever they can get for 6k?

Sorry have you got a link to the source, I need to learn about this!

Well I think TES should have known better and moderated their threads more closely in that case. I think there probably were some teachers on the thread, the experiences and attitudes sounded quite real to me.

I am pleased, though, that it was not moderated out in order to bring this to light.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-funding-reform-next-steps-towards-a-fairer-system

Here you go.

The 6k takes more unravelling and looking at several LA policy documents which quantify support. I have been digging for a while...

I mean what 6K equates to.

Soapbox Your school should have had the opportunity to be involved in the consultation. It is being rolled out as we speak.

Look up the School Forum and Cabinet Meeting Minutes for your LAs policy development.

Regards what happens though if school decides that they'd rather have more hours with a level 1 TA for their money rather than say a TA who is qualified and experienced such as dd's TA?

Dd's level of TA would be protected as it's in her statement but it might mean more "babysitting" rather than actual support for some children. I think that's one of my concerns about the focus being on cost rather than need.

insanity Well I suppose if there is justification for High Needs funding she would get that and the Education Health Care Plan.

From what I understand (although I haven't checked because I'm home schooling next year so not too worried) dd's statement will continue and so her level of TA support will run .
My worry would be that schools would let go of really effective qualified TA's to get more for their money. Let's face it just because a TA's hours is convenient when your child is at school it doesn't mean you are up to the job. I would actually hate dd's TA to be "one of the parents off of the playground"

Hmm insanity yes. However that is a problem now for many. Not all schools include the parents in recruitment decisions. Its not easy to go around asking everyone about their qualifications either...

Some of the less qualified TAs are also better than the more qualified. Qualifications do not bar you from being just awful or having a character clash with the child you were assigned to 1 to 1.

Agreed although I have been extremely fortunate with dd and ds's TA's. I'm not saying that one precludes the other more that I would be concerned that schools would plump for quantity over quality and I think that would be a huge detriment to lots of children.

So like during the OFSTED inspection when dd's TA was sick she was replaced by another TA who although giving her 1 to 1 support as per her statement was in fact a bum on the seat rather than her TA who is able to float in and out according to dd's needs at that time. In that case the TA who replaced dd's TA supported dd (although not really it was more that they were present) but her TA would have supported dd but also others in the class so better value for money.

Yes I think so.

If your dd's TA supported other children the 'cost' would be assigned to each of these children. Your dd's Statement would not be used to cover their needs. The EHCP is individual and details a child's individual support (over 6k, the school is responsible for the initial 6k)