My child being placed with immediate effect on Reduced Timetable (Reception)

[breakingdads]

Hi,

Would like anyone who has experience with primary / reception education to help if possible. My child is in reception (he is the youngest in the year - in fact, born 2 days later would probably be starting this coming September). He has been in nursery and pre-school care full time since 2 without any problems, in fact glowing reports which eased my worries of him entering reception this past September. However in the last 3 months, apparantly, he has started to have some problems in class, with concentration, being tired, territorial etc which have resulted in some aggressive acts - hitting out. I have had this flagged up twice, but the school have said they have been able to deal with it. However last week, we got a call to say that he had injured a teacher and for this reason, he will be put on a reduced timetable with immediate effect. Obviously this has had a major impact on how we manage things with him not being in class at all now 5 mornings a week. Since it has happened I have found out that the incident seemed more accidental than premeditated (he had fallen asleep and the teacher had woke him up, which startled him and he jumped off the chair indavertently onto her hand which was on the floor). Now in the conversations I initially had, I was in absolute shock as I was being told "my child had broken a staff members arm) so was apologising profusely, to the point that I was just agreeing to everything they said. However as the matters sinks in, I am starting to wonder if the way they have acted is a)lawful b)ethical and c) in the best interest of my child. At this point in time, I have had no written information about his behaviour in class which has resulted in this reduced timetable, I have had no information on what they plan to do going forward, no plan etc I have signed nothing saying that my child can go to a reduced timetable. Literally just been told he can't come in anymore in the mornings - deal with it. I've just accepted things and muddled my way through this week. Obviously a solution could be that we have to continue with the reduced timetable and look at deferring him till this coming September. However all feedback received from the reception teacher is that he is managing his school work well, its just that he is not coping emotionally with the reception class. I've been told that with a class of 30 he can't expect to get any personal treatment, but the more I am reading about this - it seems there is an obligation for the school to look at every possible way of keeping a child in class and integrating them which doesn't seem to have happened. His behaviour with me is absolutely spot on so I am also trying to work out what is triggering his so called behaviour in class ( which again seems to be unrecorded and anecdotal at best ). If anyone has any constructive advice it would be much appreciated, as I feel I have agreed to something under "the fog" of being made to feel guilty on something that myself and child shouldnt really have been made to feel guilty of. Muddling through this week, but very difficult when full time working at the same time. My child hasn't got a clue what is happening, just keeps on asking when they can go back into school. Thanks again.

That was my plan, I was going to do an executive summary of the meeting, as well as sending over all the questions too. I am with you, the system may be broke, funding is tough etc I really understand - but the legal framework is there to protect everyone in the system and has to be adhered to. It's not something that can be dropped just because it's difficult.

The system is broken but your little boy hasn’t broken it. Why are all those other children in day to day when yours is suffering. I also don’t see how a broken system has led to this exclusion, are they just going to get rid of all students that have a problem?

Quite agree, and I now have time to decipher all of this - which I will. Our children shouldn't be seen as collateral damage to a supposed broken system.

the worst case is that he does a reduced table and when he returns to school he struggles more because nothing much has been put in place to help. I don’t think it’s a sign of great SLT leadership that they mostly
seem to have gone on about their problems.

really you want to know what the best option for ds is in their professional opinion, not the best they think they can do for now.

Well done you!

The system is broken but also, your child isnt a guinea pig they can just try different things on. It needs to be done properly.

If your child gets pupil premium then you can ask specifically what they are spending that extra funding on to help him.

What have they said in regards to any SEN? Is he on the schools SEN register?

ask your child what he wants and factor it in your decision. All the adults are making the decision but no one is asking him if he wants to go full time or for less hours. Does he feel like it is difficult being at school full time? I know he is only 5 but the 5 year olds I have seen are much smarter than we give them credit for.

Sounds like the 'broken arm' was a storm in a teacup. Their response seems very 'kneejerk'. They generally sound a but useless.

Everything else wouldn't normally be of note. Tired reception child, sometimes falls asleep.

Agree with PP. Is he enjoying school mainly?

I find the whole thing quite strange. Ime schools are usually very quick to tell us how important attendance is.

Any update @breakingdads did you managed to get a clearer plan from the school following up from the meeting? How is your Ds?

Hi
Just a bit of an update for those interested, sorry for the delay but managing to work and manage a child on a reduced timetable is having quite the impact. You can see why a recent report suggested 30% of parents who had children on a reduced timetable had to give up work. It’s a really sad situation.

I have another meeting with the Head, tomorrow, hopefully she will have all the information I have requested from the previous meeting – which is quite a lot to be honest!

Ive carefully read back my notes from last weeks meeting and this is my considered synopsis.

The school have essentially stated the decision to go to a reduced timetable has come directly from the Local Authority Autism Team. This seems to be their go to advisors. Any questions seemed to be answered with this was the advice from the LA Autism Team. So trying to get a contact for them and documentation on their “so called” recommendations.

The LA Autism Team to my understanding have never met my child or observed him. I have never met them or had any contact with them either. So it’s difficult to understand how they can make a considered (and appropriate) decision without doing so.

The school recommend that 1:1 support is the only way they are getting success with my child. However funding and resources mean that this can’t be supported on a full time timetable.

They can offer 1:1 on a part time basis though! It is my belief that these things cannot be the basis for a reduced timetable.

The school believe it is an option to defer and repeat the reception year, however I am still to find any credible documentation / policies to say this is possible. Again, the Head said this will be clarified by tomorrow.

Even though my child is not 5, and not legally enforced to be in full time education, the fact that the school admitted him on a full time basis last September and have him on roll, means it is 100% our choice to decide whether he should be on a reduced timetable. I now have this verified by multiple sources. It is also unlawful to place child on reduced timetable without written parental consent. Which has happened.

I have requested CPOM logs for tomorrow, as well as documentation regarding their SEN plan, comms with outside agencies (including LA Autism Team and their recommendations) and the Reduced Timetable. Amongst others!

The school have to prove they have exhausted all solutions and demonstrate a graduated response to my childs integration into school life. No documents showing that so far, so again hopefully they will have this tomorrow. At the moment the schools take is that he is not missing an academia on a reduced timetable as he spent half the time out of the class room anyway (and wasn’t in a fit state to access the curriculum) when he was in full time. We have seen no recorded evidence yet, and believe I should have been told daily if my child had been excluded from the classroom.

The lack of resource / funding should not be the driver of a reduced timetable. The school has a duty to provide an education for all pupil son roll.

At the moment the school are saying they are using all the money they have available to give my child 1:1 and that unfortunately it is not enough for full time. We have no evidence if they a maxing out funds on my child, and no documents showing what they have been spending it on – and if what they have spent it on has worked or not.

The school was adamant that they are not off rolling and that the problem of off rolling is primarily a secondary school issue. However considered opinion from a few people I’ve spoken to in the system seem to suggest this could be seen as off rolling, and unlawful use of a reduced timetable – which could also be discriminatory.

Pretty big crunch meeting tomorrow to decide the way forward. Again, going to see what they come back with before jumping the gun. I will not sign anything tomorrow or agree to anything – as I’ve read you can lose your right to appeal.

I have had several chats with my child, and he has said he wants to be in full days, he misses seeing his friends and also he gets upset when he sees his sister / friends going into school and him not being able to. In fact to me I believe his behaviour has slightly worsened at home since this has been imposed. I am massively concerned on what he will be missing out on both in terms of education and social. Especially if he has to go back in September in to the same class room, with peers who will have had potentially several months of being in full time compared to his reduced timetable.

It is unquestionable in my belief that we have the imposition of an unlawful reduced timetable, but again I want to ensure what we do next is in his best interests.

It's only been 2 weeks and I can see the impact already, on both him and his sibling (she now wants to stay off school thinking he’s having fun at home) as well as myself. To get my work hours and complete my work I am working close to Midnight most night just to keep this going. As well as trying to do constructive activities with him during the time he should be in school.

It will be interesting to see what they say tomorrow ( they’ve got a lot of work to prove they have been working in the best interest of my child) but at least I believe I have the law behind us (if we feel going back to a full time timetable is the best way forward).

Please, if anybody has any experience of taking the decision of refusing to allow their child to be put on a reduced timetable please could they let me know? Do the school just take the child back or will they look to go to a formal exclusion? What has been the relationship with school thereon?

If you want DS to attend full time inform the HT in writing DS will be attending full time and you will not be collecting early unless DS is formally excluded. Don’t panic if they do as it will a) provide you with evidence of unmet needs, b) force the school to follow due process, c) limit the number of days the school can exclude for, and d) allow you to challenge any exclusion.

Primary schools do off roll, it isn’t a problem limited to secondary schools.
Whether the decision has come from the LA or not it is still an unlawful exclusion and should not be happening.

You are right, the school should not be putting DS on a part time timetable because he needs 1:1. If DS needs 1:1 have the school applied for high needs top up funding and an EHCNA?

It is possible to repeat reception but that still doesn’t mean the school putting DS on a part time timetable is lawful. That is a separate point.

Good luck with your meeting. Cpoms logs could be interesting (if they've been completed).
I don't understand where the need for 1:1 has come from if the connected pre-school had no issues? Have they communicated with each other?

What I don’t follow is the involvement of the Autism Team. Is the school saying they believe your son is autistic? If so, are they arranging the correct assessments etc. if not, why are they consulting with them. And how can that team advise on a course of action without seeing the child and his parents?

Is a school even allowed go consult external third parties without informing a parent?

@FloatingBean , many thanks for your indormed comments on this thread. I have read this on the SENDIASS website (as part of their good practice guide).

c) Must have signed parental consent, evidenced on the student file prior to the commencement of a time limited reduced timetable. If the parent does not agree, the reduced timetable arrangements cannot be implemented. In these circumstances, the school will have to consider alternative interventions.

Would you know what "alternative interventions" the school have open to them?

I do think deferral helped my dd cope better with school emotionally and socially, so was good in that aspect but I don’t think it’ll change the need for that 1:1 support to achieve the learning they need. I’m amazed anyone can keep a job going with flexi school, I couldn’t, sounds awful.

good luck with the meeting - I’d be thinking bigger than this school, you may have an opening to get something that really meets his needs rather than just taking what you can get.

Alternatively interventions could look like many things. It may be additional SEN support within the classroom, additional SEN support outside of the classroom but within school, applying for high needs top up funding, applying for an EHCNA, alternative provision offsite. A combination of the above. Or it may be the school feel they have to formally exclude, but for the 4 reasons in my pp that doesn’t need to be the end of the world. They could formally exclude for part of the day.

It is slightly different in your case as DS is below CSA so you can choose to send him part time, but other than that choice a reduced timetable should not be used to manage a pupil’s behaviour whether parents agree or not.

Be careful with SENDIASS. Some are good but too many repeat the LA’s unlawful policies. IPSEA and SOSSEN are better.

It seems odd that they turn to the LA Autism Team when they haven’t spoken to you about suspected autism, he went through nursery without the possibility being raised, and you have had no concerns at home.

Have they told you why they even spoke to the team in the first place?

It’s also not just odd, but somewhat horrifying that they claim he has been out of class 50% of the time because he can’t cope and he has required a 1:1 in class yet they haven’t mentioned this to you once in the 6 months since Reception started. And they were unable to document this & failed to mention it when you went in for your first meeting. It seems highly unlikely that, even if there are issues with your son’s participation in the Reception class, that they are actually on the ball about what those issues are, have considered a wide range of possibilities and have tried a range of interventions to see what would best support your DS.

But ultimately, even if they are right, if he can be in class with 1:1 support he should not be being put on a reduced timetable. Kids with autism have the same right to a full time education as kids who do not have autism.

You could see if the autism advisory service have a helpline so you can contact them yourself.
In my LA the autism advisory service need signed consent to be able to discuss individual cases, had you signed anything?

@NumberTheory yes it is all staggering really. The lack of information is disturbing, documentation, actual evidence of what has happened (as opposed to anecdotal quotes such as "he spends 50% of the time out of the classroom") is mind boggling. I really hope they come prepared tomorrow and realise the severity of the situation. But who knows? At least I feel as clued up as I can be - and have a process planned the meeting falls apart tomorrow. As a previous poster said the CPOMS log should be interesting ( if they have been done or done correctly ). All what has happened seems to have been ill conceived and ill thought out - at best, at worst a complete disaster of unlawful practices. Sadly as I have read and chatted with people recently it seems this is an ever growing problem. To the point that Ofsted have basically issued a warning (Dec 2022) about the growing number of schools illegally using reduced timetables to fix problems they have gotten the resources, money, appetite to fix.

I expect it is really hard for schools, with current budgets, to meet their statutory requirements. But there is no reason your DS should be the one who gets hit hard so that they don’t have to make other cuts.

This is the info from the report I saw, if interested - I think this is from 2018, but from what I've read things are getting even worse. Sad times.

Parents of children with autism are regularly having to miss days from work, reduce their working hours, or give up their job entirely, according to new research by Ambitious about Autism.

The charity surveyed over 900 parents and carers of children and young people with autism* to find out about their experiences of the education system.

The survey revealed the impact that school exclusions have on wider family life:

• 30% of parents said they had given up their job as a result of school exclusions.
• 29% said they had missed days from work.
• 20% said they had reduced their working hours to part time.

Parents also reported an increase in the number of unlawful exclusions affecting their children – with 56% saying their child had been sent home early, worked on a reduced timetable, or asked not to come on a school trip – without an official letter being received.

Jolanta Lasota, Chief Executive of Ambitious about Autism, said: “Children and young people with autism and their families are being badly let down by our education system.

“It’s very worrying that parents are reporting an increase in ‘unofficial’ exclusions – such as children being banned from school trips or sent home early. These add up to hundreds of hours of missed education, but they slip under the radar because they are not officially recorded. We must make sure schools are held to account if they break exclusions rules.

"The wider cost to families - and society - resulting from problems at school is very troubling. Parents are having to give up jobs to look after children forced out of education – creating even more stress and instability in their lives. We must work towards a more inclusive education system for the benefit of all.”

Are you taking anyone to the meeting Op. I would. If you possibly can, take anyone! It really unnerves the school and they don't like it when there is a witness.

agree with @Oblomov23 take someone - anyone, for back up, validation, witnessing.

when I talked to a caring charity, they were amazed I’d managed to find a flexible enough employer to go back to work at all - even if they can cope in school, finding after school or holiday clubs is another nightmare.

Oh my what a mess. Good luck at the meeting tomorrow..

My son has Autism and we went through unlawful exclusions, reduced timetables, formal exclusions and eventually pushed out. Through all of this they didn’t apply for the ehcp and I had to do it myself. Once we got it they used to to say they couldn’t meet needs anyway. After promising it would help get more support.

I don’t understand if they are saying your son needs 1:1 why they have not applied for an ehcp. I also don’t understand why they haven’t done a paediatric referral if they think he has Autism. There’s so many steps that should have been taken before sprinting all of this on you.

If tbey do suspect he has Autism then deferring him isn’t going to help. He’ll still have Autism next year. They’re trying to shy away from their duty.