Can anyone help regarding 1:1 hours in school?

[Anxious4488]

Hi everyone,

Just hoping someone can shed some light for me as anyone I turn to doesn't seem to be able to give me a straight answer! Let alone the school!

So my little boy has Autism, he's 7 and has a statement of sen, in this he is entitled to 25 hours 1:1 classroom assistance per week. Last year we had no worries as he was only in until 2pm each day which covered the full five hours... Now he is in until 3pm we've ran into trouble. What I didn't realise was that his current assistant (same from primary 1) takes a 15 minute break at break time and a 45 minute lunch break, which she's obviously entitled to a break but this leaves my son alone and if we take that whole hours break away he is only receiving four hours classroom assistance per day, which brings him to 20 hours per week instead of 25.

School have taken the assistance away at 2pm and so my son struggles sometimes for that last hour. I argued my case that due to the assistant breaks this hour should surely be made up from 2-3 each day so that his hours still equal 25 per week? I also explained to school that even when he was in until 2pm he was only receiving 4 hours assistance per day as this assistants breaks still happend at that length.

I'm just wondsfing if anyone can tell me if I'm correct in this.. Should that hour be fullfilled from 2-3pm as that makes up his five hours per day? I was told my my local authority that those 25 hours are solely for my son and every hour needs fullfilled.

I hope this all makes sense. Thanks for reading and hopefully shedding some light! :-)

You mention statement of SEN are you in NI?

You need to look at the precise wording. Is 1:1 detailed, specified and quantified or vague and woolly with wording such as “access to”, “would benefit from” “or equivalent”? Does it say classroom assistance as 25hrs 1:1 classroom assistance per week doesn’t include break or lunch times, so if that’s what is states and DS needs support at those times you need to ask for an early review to get it amended.

If the 25 hours is detailed, specified and quantified you can enforce it if it isn’t provided.

Hi, I want to say it says something along the lines of "access to 25 hours per week additional 1:1 adult support". It's the top thing outlined in his statement. I will have to get it out tomorrow for a good read! It definitely doesn't state anything about break or lunch etc, just that he should receive 25 hours then goes on to say a lot of other things that need to be fullfilled.

All very frustrating/confusing and I feel at a loss!

Unfortunately if it says “access to” it is far too vague to be of any use and isn’t enforceable. As you are finding out the provision may not be provided.

You need to ask for an early review to tighten it up.

We have our annual review early march. Can I get this changed and worded differently or is it entirely up to school? They aren't easy to work with about this stuff!

It is the LA who make amendments, not the school. Provision in statements of SEN are taken from the reports, so you will need the provision to be detailed, specified and quantified in a report. If following the AR the LA don’t make the amendments you want you will be able to appeal.

If you are in NI, which I presume you are with a statement of SEN, have a look at SENAC’s website.

Yes I'm NI. Thanks very much for the advice, really appreciated!

I'm in England not NI but here, 25 hours means the child should have an additional adult present with them through all lesson time every day. 32.5 hours would mean all lesson time plus "unstructured time" - breaks, lunches, registration. These are standard numbers that any SENCo will be used to dealing with. You are right OP. 25 hours does indeed mean 25 hours, not 20.

Not that it affects things but I expect his 1:1 is not getting paid to eat their lunch either. How on earth they reckon the 1:1's lunch break counts in his hours I've no idea. Actually I'd be curious as to whether they are actually in the staffroom eating, or whether they are helping out elsewhere. It's by the by really but it might help you piece the puzzle together.

@JustKeepBuilding is of course right on the wording side. At his review keep the number of hours specified, whether that's 25 or 32.5 (or the NI equivalents if different).

Not related to the OP as in her case it says classroom assistance and also uses “access to”, but more generally unless it is specifically stated the 25 hours are to be used in the classroom they can be used any time, including breaks and lunch. That is why it is important the provision is detailed, specified and quantified.

Thank you both for your replies. Chiasmi - this is exactly what I expected ans couldn't get my head together over why the school would think otherwise.
It states in my son's statement 25 hours so if he's got no 1:1 support during break and lunch I would have assumed that this would not be included. His assistant worked at the school before and very much likes to be included in break and lunch times with her colleagues. My son however is without support during this time and therefore lacks that whole hour being missed.

His assistant definitely takes lunch and break to herself with colleagues and does not help elsewhere, but is currently being sent to another class for another child for the hours between 2-3pm. Over the year she has also constantly helped elsewhere/doing errands for the teacher during my son's hours which I recently found out and feel distressed about as this in turn upsets my son 😥

As the statement says “access to”, the number of hours, whether DS is receiving them and whether it includes breaks/lunch are irrelevant. “Access to” makes it too woolly. You can’t force the provision to be provided, unfortunately.

So at our annual review I can ask for these wording changes to be implemented, so that it's more enforceable is that correct? Presumably the Senco will put this forward to the LA and if they refuse I can appeal?

You can request the LA amend the wording. However, provision in statements of SEN are taken from the reports, so you will need the provision to be detailed, specified and quantified in a report. If the reports are woolly the statement will be too. If following the AR the LA don’t make the amendments you want you will be able to appeal.

I'm not sure how it works with statements in NI but when I spoke to Ipsea regarding the number of hours in my son's EHCP, they told me not to get too bogged down with the numbers. EHCPs are moving away from stipulating hours and going to a funded banding model.
The 'hours' equates to the amount of funding the school receives to deliver what's in Section F of an EHCP.

As PP have said, if it states in Section F that a DC must have 'full time 1:1 dedicated support at all times' then that is what the local authority has to deliver (via the school). If the 'hours'/funding isn't sufficient to pay for that, it's for the school to take up with the local authority.

Unfortunately, as you're finding out, even with a statement/EHCP, you still have to be constantly on the ball, checking what's supposed to be happening actually is.

It sounds like the school are using the woolly wording of your DS's statement to enable them to support another DC/get the LSA to help out generally in the school. This isn't uncommon. Schools are completely strapped for cash and staff.

As @JustKeepBuilding says, the key is to get the wording tightened up. This is really important. 'Access to' could mean anything - it could mean there's an adult physically somewhere in the building (and if his LSA is working with another child, that would cover it as they could be 'accessed' if the school think it's required).

How long ago were the reports that fed into his Statement done? I would pull them out and go through them with a highlighter. Are there any references to 'requires fulltime/constant support' etc?

At the annual review, make sure you hold the school to account for all the parts of the Statement that are quantifiable. If they're not being delivered/targets aren't being met, that strengthens your argument that the hours aren't adequate.

I would also start keeping a diary of what happens when your son isn't being supported in class. What's he like when he comes out of school? What does his teacher say in terms of how he's not coping in class?

@Toomanyminifigs I’m surprised IPSEA told you that. It sounds more like what an LA would say. LAs are certainly trying not to detail, specify and quantify any provision in F but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. 1:1 should still be specified and quantified in F if the provision is necessary and SENDIST are still doing this so parents should appeal if F is woolly and vague.

@Toomanyminifigs it goes against case law and IPSEA own information page too.

In my DS's EHCP, it says 'DS's school will receive an allocation of resources sufficient to provide him with XXX hours of support each week from a LSA'. I believe different local authorities here in England word that section in different ways.

When I queried the hours with Ipsea, as I didn't feel it was enough, they then asked what was actually quantified and specified in Section F - as obviously that's what will have to be legally delivered. In my DS's case, it does specify a high level of individual, tailored support.
In which case, Ipsea said that it was for the school to then take up with the Local Authority if they were unable to deliver it all with the funding they have been allocated.

@Toomanyminifigs Yes, it’s F that’s important. Sorry I thought that’s what you were talking about. F should be detailed, specified and quantified.

Although a high level is too vague to be enforceable.

I could probably have been clearer in my original post! What I meant was Section F is the absolute key. The number of hours that the local authority allocate for funding the EHCP/Statement is a bit of a 'red herring' in that it isn't for the parent to worry about. It's about ensuring what's in Section F can't be left open to interpretation.

My DS's EHCP does have quantifiable things in it like: '15mins of SALT therapy a day delivered by a trained professional' '40mins a day working 1;1 on securing number bonds' '40 mins touch typing a week' etc but I was just being lazy by not typing it out!

My misunderstanding, apologies. We are on the same page.

Get rid of the access to for a start!
That could mean they don't give him any one to one ours .
And I'd say the last hour definitely would be stressful (organising things to bring home ect ) so tell them it's not acceptable

You can tell them not providing support 2-3pm is unacceptable all you want but with the wording in Part 3 as it is OP can’t do anything about it not being provided so she should focus on amending the wording.

So upon getting DS statement and reading it again, there are 8 points need followed. Number 3 is the classroom assistance part, it states - "Additional adult attention to promote DS inclusion and independence in meeting the objectives outlined. DS should have access to 25 hours of 1:1 classroom assistance per week".

I kind of feel like I've really screwed up on this and not fought sooner, but I just didn't realise how important the wording was.

I know I can flag this at the annual review and put forward wanting it changed the appeal etc but is there any chance I can honestly get this changed eventually so it's much more precise? We're only primary 4 and having much more issues around anxiety etc so the fact we still have P5,6 and 7 to go in primary school scares me if this isn't changed! The school have always provided the assistance etc and never ever argued it but it's the extra hour that frightens me. Also the fact that DS assistant has been off a hell of a lot lately (that's another story!), But there's no guarantee they'll provide attentional support for him if this kept happening!

Under part 3 titled "Educational Provision to meet needs and objectives" it also states "the educational provision to meet ds special educational needs and the objectives set should be as follows -" then goes on to state these 8 points. Why is SHOULD stated so much throughout? Would I need that amended too?

Unfortunately many don’t realise the wording is too vague until they need to enforce provision. Don’t dwell on it, you can’t change the past, focus on pushing for it to be amended.

It’s possible to get it amended, but you may need to appeal.

Must would be better than should, but amending “access to” is more important.