'No one gets 1:1 on their statement'

[Theyarewatchingus]

Have name changed due to paranoia. DS is in nursery, we have proposed statement which does not mention 1:1 anywhere. We have 3 assessments stating he needs 1:1 for all areas of learning and for safety reasons.
LEA says 'no one gets 1:1 on their statement.'

I have spoken to IPSEA who suggest amending statement and putting in all the 1:1 stuff in section 3 but to not even try to get the 1:1 linked to the hours he is being given. They also think it is nigh on impossible and that a good nursery/school would provide 1:1 anyway (sounds risky to me).

Yet, I know parent's who have got it put in, admittedly after going down the tribunal route.

What I am asking is, is it worth the fight?

Proposed statement has to be both specified and quantified in terms of support.

LEAs know the law and what they are telling you is a load of old cobblers.

Reject the statement doc if it is neither specified nor quantified. You need to go through Parts 2 and 3 with a fine toothcomb.

What have nursery said?

Dd2 wasn't statemented until prep for yr r, but had full time 1-1 for three years prior to that, funded by the LA.

I would clarify with nursery that they will indeed be providing 1-1 as specified in the assessments, (you need to make sure that you are always maintaining understanding and the nursery relationship as a priority)

As a secondary activity, make amendments to the statement to include specified 1-1 time, and return to the LA requesting amendment to draft. In your covering letter, cross refer all of your amendments to the points in the professional reports where it says x/ y or z is mandatory. Back up why, and if possible, the outcome if x/y/ z is not included.

Make sure nursery have seen the reports where ft 1-1 specified as necessary. Make sure they are aware that the LA are saying not necessary, against recommendations.

I'm not sure why IPSEA are rolling over, though... Maybe the reports aren't as categoric about ft 1-1 as it seems?

Dd2 had her ft 1-1 throughout nursery with no statement, and was awarded 15 hrs 1-1 on yr r statement. IPSEA are correct in that schools and nurseries often tailor the 1-1 provision according to their own ideas (there were two children with 15 hours 1-1 in dd2's class, so they discussed with both sets of parents and ultimately employed ft 1-1 that looked after both children on a 2-1 basis, with our agreement. Both children required 1-1 at intervals throughout the day, so a 15 hour clock on/ off was desperately inappropriate in both cases. It was easier liaising with the school about how the 1-1 was to be Implemented though. Not really necessary to have that specified in statement from our pov.

I did ask for several other things to be specified though, eg choking training, and the times when it was imperative for dd2 to have 1-1 support (lunch and snack!)

is your child worth fighting for? yes! Can provision for a designated 1-1 to work with your child be specified? yes! Did you get someone from IPSEA who was maybe a little weak in this area - probably...

Perhaps IPSEA meant that if the bits of 1:1 in part 3 all add up then the logical conclusion is a definate number of 1:1 hours!?

So, if ds needs intensive support from a experience and qualifed TA exclusively during all literacy, and then numercy, and then break times, and then lunch time, and then group work time etc etc etc.?

Perhaps.

Perhaps IPSEA have experience of the law being flouted and tribunals letting them in recent times!? That is possible too.

BUT, it is still the LAW that statements are properly quantified and specified. The law is on your side.

Thanks, tribunal here we come!

Sorry missed your post so may be a bit late.
Our DS now 14 has had a 1-1 since he was 4 years old and we had a very easy ride with the LEA no tribunal or anything.
Good luck

Ds1 had full 1:1 in his statement (when he was in mainstream - including all breaks and lunches as well as classroom).

I didn't go to tribunal. I just pointed out, when they said 'no-one gets 1:1' that child X did. They said 'we can't discuss individual children' to which I said I wasn't asking to discuss him I was telling them he got 1:1. Ds1 really wouldn't have been safe without full 1:1 (Ds1 is now in an SLD/PMLD school, the other child who was given 1:1 first is in mainstream with no support now - he doesn't need it).

'No-one gets' really isn't an argument that makes any sense at all, as every statement should be individual. LA's often forget that.

Forgot to say (thanks Saintly) DS is in a special school but he is deafblind.

Both my boys have 1:1 on their statements.

DS1 is now in an SLD/PMLD school and doesn't get 1:1 specified (although 1:1 is funded at respite). I do know there are children in his school who are funded 1:1 though.

in our LEA children with a social services "section 7" which is for deafblind children only they are entitled to a 1-1 I personally think this should be challenged. DS is in a class of 5 and in my opinion all need a 1-1 despite not being sensory impaired

yes ds2 has 1 to 1 in his statemnt & always has. We didnt need to go to tribunal, was awarded on evedence of need in order to access curriculum equal to his peers.
But IMHO def worth fighting for, often tribunal isnt needed as LA,s. Often reconsider bfore it gets that far.