Reduced timetable - how long can this go on for?

[Schoolworry]

Ds (12) has suspected AS. We moved to a new county 6 months ago and first had to wait half a term before ds could start school while support was being put in place - fair enough. After a month there he was put on a reduced timetable in line with his statement hours (22) as he was having his usual difficulties with other children at lunch/break times. We hoped this would be for a short while but he has now been on reduced hours since early December. School have been very good though,much better than any previous school. They have involved professionals straight away and we hope to get a dx in the next few months. He is quite bright, does attend most of the core subject lessons and does not appear to have fallen behind academically yet. He is now getting really upset though because he wants to go back to full time as he says he is missing out on the 'fun' lessons and only gets the boring one's . There is a professionals meeting being held this week - can we insist he receives a full time education (maybe a tutor for afternoons)? We are worried that if he goes back full time and something kicks off he will be excluded which will be worse than part-time. Any advice appreciated.

Horrified by this. Shouldn't have taken half a term to put support in place and shouldn't be on part time hours because of funding: if Statement hours are too low, the Statement needs amending. Current arrangements are discriminatory and vvv unfair.

In answer to your original q, it can theoretically go on forever but it is ongoing illegal exclusion, so it's up to you to challenge it. Good luck

I think it depends on whether you agreed to the reduced timetable, that is allowed if agreed by both school and parents. If you no longer agree with it then you can insist on going full time, it'll be up to the school to make sure the support he requires is in place, if that requires amending the statement then that should be done, just don't get drawn into arguements about who funds that as that is between school and the lea. A temporary exclusion could actually work in your favour as proof of extra support being needed.

Thanks for all the advice. I have been saying to dh that I think it's illegal exclusion but he would rather ds gets through a day with no problems with full support than gets excluded. He was excluded twice at previous school but this was due to HT not providing support and deliberately excluding as she was wanting him out of there . The statement was reviewed when he started there when full time and it was stated that no changes were necessary.

ipsea has some good advice about exclusions that's worth looking at. You can always ask for an emergency review of the statement if that's what needs looking at. Of course it would be better to just get the support needed but unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way

From experience - until you point out unofficial exclusion is illegal (do this gently as it started in an attempt to help your child) and ask them to pay for home tuition to bring the hours up to a full-time education as is your child's right.

You can ask for a formal timetable for his school hours say for a week he does till 2pm - then 2.30 then 3 and so on.

My child's statement gives him an autism trained 1:1 at lunchtimes to help him with his social skills programme. He practices the social skills right there in the playground with a TA to prompt him when he gets stuck. It's almost more valuable than his classroom support as I can't replicate daily peer casual interactions at home like this for him. The school are always trying to whittle it away behind my back, but it really has helped him make so much progress it's been worth making a fuss about.

Worth asking if you can do summat similar perhaps? My lad is only 7 so the method of support you choose may be different but it's worth thinking about doing summat along the same principle.

Your DS is entitled to an education which is 'suitable for his age and ability'.

That is a full-time education and only becomes a reduced timetable if he's too unwell to atnd school - which he is not.

Frankly - it's outrageous.

It's an illegal exclusion and you should contact IPSEA or an education lawyer. You should also contact the Education Dept at your Local Council and make a complaint.

You can and should insist that they provide him with full-time education. If you ask the Local Authority for a home tutor for the times he is not permitted to be in school I'm pretty sure the Local Authority will have him back full-time in school in no time, as home tuition will cost them a fortune.

I can understand why this is happening from the school's perspective and they are being good with him and doing things in the right way. But it is great that your son wants to go back full time. You can identify when the key 'flare' up times might be (break and lunch) so what he needs then is an identified place he can go during those times. The problem from a school's perspective is when and where. Often Head of year offices are used but they are also used for those students in internal isolation - which he isn't and you don't want him rubbing shoulders with someone who might try to wind him up. Likewise you don't want him kicking around outside a corridor while the HOY is on the phone making a phonecall to a parent. HOYs work incredibily hard. The same thing happens with the SENCO but I would have thought he is not the only child who might need a bit of tlc at these times so is their any provision in the SEN dept (a TA etc who could run a social skills type club with three or four invited students) or we used to find the library was quite a sanctuary for students who found it difficult to cope in the hurly burly (and for boys there is a lot of hurly and burly). Now he has 22 hours in his statement so I would say that is it worth him having support for his 'down' times and identifying lessons that he doesn't need support in (such as, say, Geography or Music) and being a bit creative about it. He needs to be allowed out before the 'critical times' of break and lunch and changeover for lessons 5 mins early so he can avoid the scrum and he needs to have a 'get out of classroom' card for moments when he knows his anxiety levels are going through the roof. He needs to have a safety bolt hole.

I would do all these things step by step. Don't just let him go straight into full timetable. Let him pick a day where he thinks he can go through the whole day and see how that goes for a week or two, then build on that. It is doable. We had a chap who wasn't attending much at all, then just a couple of lessons a day and now is doing a full timetable with no probs.

Good luck and keep the school on side. The SENCO and the Head sound like they are positive and that is worth gold. If you can all work together then that will auger well for your son's educational future.

Look on the IPSEA website and also Advisory Centre for Education (ACE).
IPSEA also have a telephone helpline.
It sounds illegal to me. Although the Statement is 22 hours they are meant to make up the difference from their own resources. Sending a child home at lunchtime is an exclusion.
Don't be fobbed off.

The Local Government Ombudsman issued a report last year you can download from their website called "out of school out of mind". It puts minimum full-time education for a 12 year old at 24 hours.

But you are right on top of that actual education time he is entitled to leisure and social opportunities which should be provided in school with 1:1 but you could also argue as this is not being provided by school that it should be provided out of school through social care support e.g. direct payments to support leisure opportunities.

It is also discrimination if there is no reason why he cannot attend except financial. If they are not saying he would not manage a school day even with FT 1:1 then its clear discrimination as non disabled children are being offered a FT education.

The council should have emergency extra funding they can provide to any school that says it cannot afford the extra 1:1.

And you can ask to review the statement etc as above.

But yes its time to put your foot down, they have had long enough. It is not your problem who funds the support. If he needs FT 1:1 then it needs to be provided it is not your problem how this is financed. And I would insist as a minimum on the extra 2 hours as private tuition and a social care assessment to look at your needs as a carer and his needs as disabled child who is presently being denied any social opportunities until he can go FT.

When you moved the new County should have undertaken its own review of the statement and that should have been completed within 6 months. So you need to push for increased statemented hours and appeal any refusal to reassess / amend the Statement at next annual review.

You should at least make a formal complaint to the Chief Exec of the Council that this has taken so long - that then gives you the chance of going to the Ombudsman while you wait for any appeal to go through. On the basis of the LGO report they would be expecting a Council to offer FT, or if the child cannot manage FT ensuring at least 24 hours a week education.

Thanks all again. I can always rely on the SN boards for great advice (regular name-changer). Ds has already pointed out that there are several lessons that he has no bother in so 'why does he have to have support there?'. He does have the opportunity to go to a designated quiet room at break times for the SN children but won't go as 'the children have problems and he doesn't feel comfortable there' and he prefers to walk around the playground and try to mix with others. I like the idea of leaving 5 minutes early to go to the next class as school have said this is a potential 'flashpoint' time. They have said that he will need to go back full time gradually but there has been no indication of when this is likely to be so we will be pressing this point at the meeting. Agnes - that info about the 24 hours is really useful. It does appear that he can't be full time because of 'lack of resources' and that really isn't our problem is it?

No it isn't. The only reason for him not to go full-time is if this is in his interests e.g. he would become ill / anxious / self harm etc if he went FT. There is no basis for the school to say they cannot manage to have him FT. The LA must put in the resources to make mainstream appropriate unless this is so expensive that it is an unreasonable use of resources (which given private tuition or special school would cost much more is not the case here).

It is discrimination - look at Equality Act. They cannot treat him less favourably than another child because he is disabled.
see guide for schools here

It is also potentially a breach of the human rights act - right to an education.
There was a case last year A (Appellant) v Essex County Council (Respondent) [2010] UKSC 33 the NAS intervened in. Although it was unsuccessful on the particular facts of the case (this boy could not be managed in any school his needs were so extreme so it was found that the council had not breached his right to education as this boys needs were outside what a council could be expected to provide a standard) the case did clarify that there is an individual right to education for all children with disabilities. Local authorities who fail to provide children with autism with an education are at risk of being sued for having breached the human rights of those children.

Just had this situation with my school. I initially agreed to PT hours whilst statement put into place and the school got funding but once all sorted he was to go FT. School dragged it. I politely told them about time he was integrated back. They tried to back track the time saying he wasnt coping. I had to put my foot down and mention that they were then unofficially excluding him.

Stick with it and say both DS and you want him back into FT school. Suggest half hour extra for two weeks, followed increasing another half hour for 2 weeks etc.

Should they kick up and phone you for collection say you do not support this and ask where they are recording this exclusion and do not pick up until you have a letter in writing stating WHY (I was advised to do this by my LA)

Another good reason for this is that this can show school cannot cope and need increase in statement hours for support so it will add a string to your bow by way of written back up to support this.

I would also email and write anything from now on for a paper trail. They sound a nice school in that they supported your DS but so where mine till they had to shell out money for lunchtime cover and actually hire a TA for the afternoons with the funding they were sitting on.

The others are right it is you that have to get the ball rolling. :)

Remember it is the LA's job to meet your childs SEN as he has a Statement and to fund schools properly. So you can always play dumb with the school and express sympathy with them but make it clear that you are going to now take a firmer line with the LA for dragging their feet. You need to complain direct to the LA in writing as any remedy for a complaint or any appeal is against the Council SEN team not the school. It is the LA's job to make the school do its job properly - so if its the school that will not shell out then by complaining to the LA they will then put pressure on the school.

It is the LA which would have to fund private tuition.

Another option would be to ask the LA to provide one of its ASD outreach team TA's to your child until the school can recruit one.

I would challenge your statement thet the school "have been very good". They may be better than his previous one, but really they are not being very good if it took so long to get any support in place and they are still failing to give him full time education.
If they cannot manage without any more support then you need to find out what they will do to provide it.

UPDATE - I have today received a revised statement from the new county. Much of it is the same as before with a slight omission about sensory issues that I need to get put in. Part 3 is worded differently from the last one - views on this please: School provision should be enhanced by the allocation of a TA for a total of 22 hours per week ( is this too ambiguous?). They will be funded as follows etc,etc - 2 hours of midday supervision authorised by SEN services. Then it says : The school to provide any additional TA support they feel necessary. EP and Behaviour support have been actively involved since he started at the school but none of their reports are listed so I will obviously be querying this.

It's too ambiguous.

Should = can if they feel like it. Replace with will.

The school to provide any additional TA support they feel necessary = to provide none or as little as they can get away with. Replace with TA to be provided for x hours 1:1 per week

If your son is not in school because the necessary support is not available for him, and 'reasonable adjustments' could be made to enable him to be in school, then this is disability discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010.
See Human Rights and Equalities Commission website.

In addition, (and this is where your solution lies), under the Education Act 1996 your son has a legal entitlement to a 'full time suitable education'
I have not read the whole thread but you seem to be suggesting that if he had additional support above 22 hours written in the statement, then he would be OK. The school is discriminating, but more importantly, the statement is not succeeding in ensuring his entitlement to full time education. The local authority casework should ensure that your son receives his entitlement, reviewing the statement if necessary. As your son has a statement, it is the local authority, not the school who has the ultimate legal responsibility here, and you should ask them to take action immediately. If they do not, then go to the Local Government Ombudsman website, and search SEN- and it will show that this is something the Ombudsman would be very interested in!

The other piece of guidance you should know about is the Exclusions Gudiance (see Education.gov.uk. Part 2 of this has a bit on 'unofficial exclusions' which are illegal. This is one of those.

Your parent partnership service should assist you in this matter.
I am an advice worker (as you can probably tell!) who is extremely concerned about this increasing common practice
GOOD LUCK. If you are not clear on anything, please ask.

Is the short stay school a Pupil Referral Unit? I thought that they were for children with behavioural difficulties rather than SN? How is 4-5 weeks in a setting actually going to help him get to FT school?

I am nowhere near statementing yet but this just sounds like it is like a sticking plaster. Surely they need to apply for a FT 1:1 for him in M/S school if he is causing them this much difficulty. 5 weeks is going to take him to the end of the school year by the time all of this gets agreed and then the whole mess will start over in the next school year. I am cross for you :( It really isn't meant to be dx-related whether he gets a statement or not. There are plenty of people on this board who have managed to get one before dx.

I dont get this. If it says on his statement he has 22hrs TA support then he can stay where he is. If the school can support him with that then they can prove to the LA that they need more hours. I dont see why a move to a part time school is going to benefit at tall to be honest. Only send him to a diff environment for 5 weeks only which is not long at all and will probably only be adjusting to it and the small size before he is shipped back into chaos and have to readjust again.........

Why can they request someone from the PRU unit to vist the school and offer stratagies there. This current school will still need to supply FT support in the end by the looks of things......

This sounds like a temporary out of sight out of mind measure.....

please don't send your ds to a short stay school..... his behaviour could get worse, my dd went to one for 4hrs a week or was supposed to be, first 5 mins in there she was attacked by a boy who tried to stab her, oops that was dd fault she stood outside classroom where teacher told her to wait, dd tried to self harm while there, they threw her outside on main road n told her to jump under cars, one teacher bragged to me about finding it funny while she was in the middle of the road with cars swerving to miss her, he also told me he had been telling dd to f off back to county we had come from to her violent dad..... these places are not good especialy for dc with sn