A "suitable education"

[racetothebottom]

Have namechanged.

Does anyone know whether having a child taught solely by a TA at home constitutes a "suitable education" under the Education Act for a child out of school?

Usually, LAs provide tuition. Our LA wants to send a TA for the next 3 months while they "assess" DS further. He has a statement and complex needs but can't cope with school.

So true Keep, our tutor just wasn't suitable to teach ds and i think she knew it.

At least she was honest, she wrote that she watched me carry ds down the stairs kicking and screaming, she wrote that ds was refusing to engage with her, she wrote that ds was refusing to get dressed as he thought she was going to try taking him to school. She wrote that I was trying really hard to come up with ideas to get him to engage and trying to work with her. She wrote that ds struggled to do the work. Above all else she wrote that return to MS school wasn't suitable for ds and backed my choice of school.

She had a rant one day about the LA, red tape, waste of time, ticking boxes and jumping through hoops! I guess she was retirement age and didn't have a lot to lose!

Well he works well out of school. He is getting on brilliantly with his tutor and we don't have any of that kicking or screaming or stress.

But that is because he is not at school!!

I am quite happy to report very positively because out of school tutoring really works for him.

School structure doesn't.

Private tutors are often very much used to the ways of LAs as they see the fall out of the system - the kids that need out of school tution.

Out tutor has already picked up strengths and weaknesses with working 1:1 with DS and works very hard to give him a very tailored curriculum.

Hi Race

This tells you what quals a teacher needs

spstest.live.forlinux.codeface.com/private/pay-and-conditions/teachers-instructors-unqualified-teachers.html

Wow. Thanks so much. The Regs have been updated but seem to suggest that a TA can carry out specified activities in a school only under certain circumstances - none of which apply here, here

I know he is not in school but that is more reason to say they are unsuitable - it's probably unlawful!

Guidance from the Union too here

Hi I have to be rather careful of how I put things as I dance with the devil, but yes I do have far too much experience of arguing what a suitable education is or isn't, but it became clear it was an argument that couldn’t be sensibly held with the LA without judge’s opinions being involved.

Yes it could be suitable educational provision if it was a brilliant TA who was able to singlehandedly meet all his needs, or his needs fell within what an average TA could provide, but while I’m sure such amazing TA’s do exist somewhere, I suspect I’d have rather more chance of winning the lottery than being allocated that person, especially if he needs work differention too.

You are absolutely correct that it “can be a standalone package in its own right under sec 319 of the Education Act.”

So is there a reason why you’re not going down section 319 route using statement review, mediation, and if required, tribunal, if his placement’s broken down and there’s nowhere suitable for him to go? (I did, but do realise it’s not what everyone wants to have to do)

If everyone’s in agreement there’s no other school that can take him and provide a suitable education there, then he’s a perfect 319 LA funded or part funded, route candidate and it's only parentally 'chosen' as a result of no alternative suitable provision being available and the legal requirement of the parent to ensure a suitable education is provided, not because the parent has a burning desire to throw up their life, career etc and take over educating or organising otherwise than in school educational provision for their child, instead.

I can’t see a good legal reason why part of the part 3 section ll provision couldn’t be any good tutor you wanted, as long as the needs that a 1-1 tutor is unlikely to meet, i.e. learning to be with other kids, cope with noisy environments, eventual de-velcroing etc, are being met in different ways as part of their IEP (which you write if you’ve taken this route) especially if you can bring it in within standard budget rather than SN budget. (so it can’t be argued it’s an unreasonable use of government supplied LEA pupil finances and affecting others)

If you can do that latter bit, then it can theoretically be done through the school (if it’s a standard one, don't know about academies etc) re allocating it’s budget and providing offsite provision and retaining responsibility for the pupil and keeping them on roll, but few heads in my experience want to be in that position and LEA’s lean on them to get them back in.
Having 319 + statement direct with the LEA can be a painful enough game, I don’t think I’d want a school responsible for other than school provision. (it's an Oxymoron your honour.)

This is exceptionally helpful - thank you.

I did not want to give away too much but we are arguing for a s 319 package and have a Tribunal listed. All parties involved with DS agree he needs a s 319 package.

LA say they don't know if there for definite that school is "inappropriate" and have stated their intention to reintegrate .

They say they can't amend the statement at all as they need more assessments [hmm really ] which apparently means getting people involved with him that have had no cause to be involved thus far - e.g. CAMHS (who have written and said LA need to sort his education out, he's not mentally ill) and an NHS SLT (we already have a SLT working with him already under Direct Payments so why do we need another).

We see no need for these assessments, there just a delaying tactic - an excuse to waste time.

It also leaves him without enforceable provision as his statement is not fit for purpose.

In the meantime, they have accepted he can stay out of school (so implicitly agreeing they have nowhere to send him). They have said this can happen until January. They now say they have agreed with school a TA can be sent home.

Head has not agreed and thinks a tutor is not suitable - Wet's reference to relevant Regulations below seem to suggest it is head who can decide.

We are paying for tutors and have been since June.

Just to add - you are right about the position of the head. They see no roll for themselves if he is offsite all the time.

Sorry: "Head has not agreed and thinks a TA is not suitable"

I'm in a rush right now, but will send you a PM re a not dissimilar situation later if that might help?
i don't want to say too much of what I do (when not busily home edding) but you might want to PM me a very rough location? If you're in any of a particular set of LEA's I might have something useful for you.

Thanks v much - that would be great!

It sounds as though the LA has the thumbscrews on the Head to force him to play along with a situation the Head himself thinks is wrong.

So, to that extent, the Head is your ally - as is the school Governing Board.

This 'home TA' is probably paid for from the school's own budget. As such she will be a school employee (not LA) employee and who works under insurance cover of the school. It's important to make that differentiation.

So, ultimately, should anything go pear-shaped while the TA is at your house or even en-route to your house, it's the school who will be responsible. That's why the Head will be so averse to this arrangement.
The TA is his employee and his responsibility but over whom he has no control. Has he for instance carried out an HSE assessment on your home? That's the very least I would have to have done before permitting someone to work from home when I was a manager. I was also expected to inspect car insurance, MOT and driving licence before permitting my employee to claim mileage allowance. I also had to carry out a DSE assessment to assess whether screens were correctly sited for my employee and appropriate furniture was available at home. Etc Etc.

When the LA were determined to foist DS on a school that simply could not meets his needs and knew they couldn't and where arguing that with the LA behind the scenes - I thought it only fair to intervene on the poor school's behalf .

I sent a letter to the Head of the school cc Chair of the Governing Body explaining exactly why their school could not meet DS's needs and filling the proposed school in on all the bits the LA had conveniently left out of his Statement .

That gave the proposed school written ammo to tell the LA - no way would they admit DS.

A similar letter to your Head cc your GB telling them why you think that in addition to it not being a suitable education you have serious concerns about the insurance cover (your own house cover) and theirs). That, as the TAs employer, you hold school fully accountable for enabling this unusual and untenable arrangement blah blah.

That should get the attention of the GB, get the LA of the Head's back, while also being totally reasonable in pointing out the difficulties in this arrangement.

Unless you actually want a TA at home.

Thanks Wet - I am hoping the county's legal team will flag all this up to the head. He has asked them for advice. The school is not in the same county as the LA with responsibility for the statement.

And....I am a Governor

Ohhhhhhh Excellent

Yep, insurance was the reason I was given for TA not being able to come home to home tutor.

Interesting Claw.

Well it is Monday - the beginning of another week - and there is still no education in place for the foreseeable future - suitable or not!

It is outrageous that LAs feel so comfortable lying. But have you ever read the North Tyneside judgment? It is very short and the judges lay into the LA barrister for dragging things out when he's got no case.

These are Court of Appeal judges basically saying the barrister is not fulfilling his duty to the court and is practically pretending there is a case to answer in the hope that "something comes up".

Worth a read to demonstrate in some courts (as opposed to tribunals), judges take such things seriously.

Well the TA would have been from receiving indi SS school, so LA couldn't really force them to play ball. So it would seem that most schools wouldn't regard TA's as 'suitable', regardless of what LA think.

No I haven't read that, ds is now attending indi ss school, after receiving 6 months worth of HT, 5 hours per week. But ds was previously without education for 4 months prior to that.

My solicitor at the time advised me against paying for HT myself and relieving the LA of their duties.

My asking LA to fulfil their duties resulted in them reporting me to SS! Again just another delay tactic.

If you pay, you are not relieving them of their legal duties.

In fact, quite the opposite as it demonstrates that they are not fulfilling their legal duties because if they were, you wouldn't have to pay!

What you are doing is ensuring your child gets some education in the face of their failure rather than none at all.

But it is wrong that anyone has to do it.

Just chipping in - my solicitor advised us to recoup the costs of the private GCSE courses we bought for him from the LA. Was probably part of the eventual settlement.

You are right Race, if I had have paid for a HT, then SS probably couldn't have said that I was taking no steps to prioritise ds's education! I had asked LA to provide tutor, I had asked school to send home work and he had been signed off from school by my GP and I had applied for SA!

LA had refused SA and refused HT. Yet I was the one being reported to SS for not prioritising his education!

Strange what people in positions of power regard as 'prioritising education'. They make me sick!

claw that is dreadful. These people sicken me, they really do.

No one can get away with saying this is just about the money. If it is, why vilify parents?

I suppose blaming or trying to find fault with the parents (ie getting your hands on their medical records and investigating their life style/home environment by involving ss), is a whole lot cheaper than paying for provision.

I was one of the lucky ones, I have never suffered with any mental illness or depression. My older children all attended school and college. My house is well maintained. Just some examples of the info the LA get their hands on by involving SS and then run with.

Mum has suffered with depression, other kids school attendance is a bit patchy (for whatever reason) and house could do with a bit more maintenance and you are in shit. Bang goes indie SS school and mum needs some tablets and parenting classes. Just another LA dirty trick.

They got hold of your medical records!! What?

Yep, SS write to your GP and ask any problems with drink, drugs or mental illness. Any problems with your other kids, any other concerns and what for and when you have taken your child to the GP for previously!

You are then part of a CAF or TAC whatever they want to call it, because of SS involvement which involves 'information sharing' between parties!

OMG. Utterly awful and traumatising.