Question for teachers. If a child has a statement, would you ignore it if you belived it wasn't justified?

[2boysnamedR]

That, in nutshell.

Son has a statement via winning a appeal. Head of village school said I won it as parents have money and the LA doesn't ( not true or fair I feel. In my case I won with no solicitor against the la rep with law degree ( ex legal firm worker).

My sons in a different school so I doubt my head would say this to my face. But. I'm pretty sure they don't agree with the dessision. They do some things really well, other things not so good but overall I get the impression there's bad will that I didn't listen to the school and did this.

If a child had a statement for ASD would / do some teachers think "he's just naughty, he needs a firm hand"

I am not going to judge or bash any ideas. Surely some people must think like this? I don't want to keep banging my head against a brick wall.

It is not allowed to be ignored. It is a legal document that has to be adhered to. There is no choice in the matter.

They can't ignore it ... but it's really important that you ensure everything is written into the statement/ECHP. A statement saying a child is ASD is pretty worthless it must detail what the school must do to meet the child's needs.

It is a legal document that has to be adhered to

I am surprised people still say this. Statements are obsolete where I work, and have been for years. Some of the eldest students might still be toting one around, but we have no requirement to act on them.

Some places still use them, but it is patchy, some people still try and insist they are legally binding, but in practice, this isn't enforceable.

As the OP says, the trouble with statements is they were granted to the parents of the pushiest, and often the richest parents, not to the children in most need.

A student arriving in my class with a statement, I would consider it a helpful indication of the type of problems they have, and the support appropriate. I would not consider it a reliable indication that they have more needs than a non statemented child, although I would expect it to be reasonably accurate.

We do annual reviews for most children with statements, and many children without, and use the term " statemented" very loosely, to mean the pupils with the most severe needs, rather than the ones that actually have statements.

It doesn't necessarily attract extra money, that is distributed quite differently now, according to the school

I have had a teacher toss my ds' report to me and tell me it was "a load of baloney." Ds didn't have a statement yet, but I'm sure if he had, that teacher would have ignored it. My experience is that the best teachers pay attention to the statements and the worst teachers don't. I have learned to figure out how to make up for that AND most importantly ds' statement (we're in the USA so it's called an IEP here) specifically states that he needs teachers who are willing to work with his disabilities, so it gives the administration the flexibility (this is their phrasing, not mine) to place him with appropriate teachers whenever there is a choice.

We are still on statement as that was awarded before the law changed. He's not at transition point for EHC yet. My county are transitioning school starters and leavers, working each way to kids inbetween.

So from the last reply a teacher could look at all the kids, see one has a statement but another child has worse needs and then decide the one with the paper doesn't really justify the level of provision.

Btw this statement is bad. It lists one need, which it then says isn't educational ( ie for the nhs to sort out - but in six months the nhs hasn't either). Diagnosis isn't mentioned either. Nhs reports was ignored

The thing is, I have had students with statements, and students without.. Its not a case of caring for one more or less than the other, it is a case of only having a finite number of resources to work with, including the number of hours I worked! and having to decide how to use them best.

A child can arrive with a statement, and an expectation that the teacher will do this that and the other for him, but if all that extra stuff takes 2 hours a week, and the teacher is already working 80 or 90, where are those two hours going to come from?

You have to divide your time and your resources as best you can between the children you have. You can take the statement into account, but you have to take other children's needs into account too, and do the best you can, which will never be enough for the average class.

THere may well be children in a class who are working at a lower academic level than a child with a statement ( last year one of my statemented children children achieved a level 5 whilst the other was working at level 2) and even some with other additional needs which are more severe than a statemented child ( depending on how/when the statement was granted). But this does not excuse ignoring a statement. As has been said, this is a legal document. How good it is at ensuring the correct support however depends on how well it is written.

"Btw this statement is bad. It lists one need, which it then says isn't educational ( ie for the nhs to sort out - but in six months the nhs hasn't either). Diagnosis isn't mentioned either. Nhs reports was ignored"

If the statement doesn't specify needs or provisions then a school can be both adhering to it and ignoring it!

What provision does the statement give him that he wouldn't get via school action?

An IEP is totally different to a statement of SEN. Pupils with statements may also have an IEP

Statements aren't obsolete anywhere. They remain valid until until conversion to EHCPs is completed.

Statements aren't obsolete anywhere. They remain valid until until conversion to EHCPs is completed.

yeah, people on mumsnet often say things like this. it isn't real life though.

Suggest you read the "Transition to the new SEN and Disability System" document from the DfE as its them that's saying it not people on MN.

Teachers generally don't get to decide who "justifies that level of provision". Resources and support are allocated at a higher level.
I don't know any teacher who would think ASD was just poor behaviour.

With a specified and quantified statement the school has no choice but to meet it. The trouble is statements are rarely specified and quantified and so it is difficult for parents to enforce them legally.
Dd's statement is specified and quantified, the SENCo hates it because whether she likes it or not she has to do exactly as it states because otherwise I would complain to the LA about failure to meet it and the LA would then force her to make sure it was met or risk it going to court.
She has the message now though at our last meeting she said "you can have whatever you want" and that's exactly what I've got a teacher qualified TA who details every bit of support dd has needed and been given and in doing that I have the evidence I need to get more and better provision if and when dd should need it.
Either call a review or at the next annual review get support from IPSEA or sossen and get the statement tight sothat you can legally enforce it.

"Statements of SEN will remain in force until the transition to an EHC plan has been completed. Part IV and Schedule 27 of the Education Act 1996, relevant regulations and the 2001 SEN Code of Practice will continue to apply until the end of the process."

'We ... use the term " statemented" very loosely, to mean the pupils with the most severe needs, rather than the ones that actually have statements.'

How confusing. Presumably not to the parents though?

www.ipsea.org.uk/download-resource?id=826b3838-a1ee-41e3-802c-3e84bcd7fbc3

Our LA is transferring statements to EHCP at transition reviews and so hers won't transfer until 2017.

LEAs have until 2018 to complete the transition.

His statement will be tightened up soon as I appealed the contents.

It had his name wrong, address wrong, school wrong. So no guessing the rest was dire ( rushed through as judicial review was started).

He has around 15 hours of intervention which I worked out at £15,000 so it's beyound what a IEP could cover.

However he gets no TA time and no extra funding. The statement stated 13 hours of unspecified TA time, so my county's cut off for funding band.

Ie it was the bear minimum to not break the tribunal order

I hope he will win some funding and TA time. But if - for the example the head is telling staff "the mum is a entitled middle class pushy parent who won because she is a bitch" ( ok I'm pushy but it stems from being told my son was 6 months delayed then another assesment saying it was three years half more than half his age) - I have been lied to his entire life) but I'm not middle class or well off. But yes - maybe a pita.

The statement is very wooly - 15 hours "intervention" could mean literally anything. You need to be absolutely clear what provision you want made for your son - funding and TA time - it could be argued that is provided under the current statement.

Mrz, it doesn't make it real in real life though

Annandale, a lot of parents don't know or care, or understand, which maybe sounds odd to the parents who come on here. A lot of parents actually say their child is statemented, without having any idea what it means, and we just carry on using the word, without having an actual statement. It isn't in fact unusual for a child to be with us many ears before we find, normally on transfer, that they are not in fact genuinely statemented. If they have high needs, we do our est to meet them, within the restrictions we have, whether we ever see that blessed bit of paper or not.

On the other hand we have parents that will go to any lengths NOT to have their childs needs identified, with some families, we have to accompany children to medical appointments and assessments ourselves, to prevent the practice of substituting the child with SEN for a perfectly healthy sibling for the purposes of the assessment, and getting back the results that they have no SEN at all.

I think it's more normal for parents to downplay needs than take a LA to appeal.

This is a real statement. No doubt about that. It was issued by the LA under order of tribunal.

I fully intend to get it amended. Even the head said it's rubbish.

You really need to get advice to get it quantified and specified can recommend IPSEA and sossen and Maxwell Gillott solicitors if you want some legal advice (they have a helpline that can advise you initially for free) Once you have a quantified and specified statement then you have the legal means to get the support your child needs.