Main board discussion about specifying 1:1, or not by teachers.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/a1859219-Im-a-teacher-and-happy-to-answer-any-questions#41740309

Oh, and you others

Lots of the teachers have disappeared now, but I hope some others have read it all the same.

I just don't like the 'but it's just not REALISTIC to expect us to adhere to the statement?' whinge.

I'm not entirely sure I'm not going to cry about that

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on the thread! I was fuming, good on you Starlight.

IE, what do you suggest? I am all in but I'm not sure if we can all get together with all our ongoing battles, that for me is half the problem I am more than happy to stand up and fight, but most of have tribunals and fights with the LEA, LGO, HCPC, DfE and goodness knows what else, coming out your ears,finding the time to really devote is the problem

As I said, I'm all in as this madness can't go on and it is only set to get worse from next year. Im sure LEA's put us through the wringer so we all get so drained, cant all get together and challenge them

Don't need to get together physically - can be done remotely. I have battles too so I do know how hard it is. I really do.

But we need to seize the chances when we can!

An enema of teachers ('cos they're so up their own arses).

Not my fault - I can't keep up with our favouraite teacger's NCs either.

Now you know what I feel like whenyou went through all your Star reincarnations. Bloomin' confused

Most teachers (except one) are carrots.

Carrots are traditionally stored in 'clamps'

Therefore the collective noun for a group of teachers is a clamp of tecahers.

Starlight - I didn't want to post on the main board thread but as a trained teacher and a Mum with a child with ASD, I can understand what the teachers are saying. Bear with me if I try and explain.

Your TA are there doing a very specific job for your son. they are there to do ABA, they are very highly trained. It's a very different situations to most TAs.

Reserch wise (and I know because I did my masters level assignment on this subject) generally TAs are not show to be terribly efficient in terms of improving learning, nuture groups are comparatively effective. Well trained expert TA's are best but very very few of them are.

Your Statement may very specificially outline what your son needs. very few are like this. Having seen statements both as a teacher and through other mums, IMHE it's only the ones that have gone through the tribunal process that have that kind specific provision. Until more do the teacher really is doing what she feels right (and is whats right given the limited information available

I know we can't meet physically..lol (would be nice though)

Although I love the idea of all of us turning up and camping outside that twerps Gove's house..not the house of commons or the Dfe, but his house, that will get his attention (and a few of us locked up)

Has anyone from the real world actually met with Judge Aitken? I know Meleri Tudur has attended seminars etc. This nonsense of the LA witnesses coming in an lying through their teeth in their reports and at hearings is a pandemic and the days of trusting the NHS, etc to have the childs best interest are long gone. If the LA didn't have the ability to collude with these people to the extent they do , half the battles with SEN would not exist.

I think all witnesses should be instantly dismissed from their jobs or no longer allowed to be an independent expert if they are caught out lying or refusing to disclose information that they knew would cause further difficulties or harm to the child (as if most of our DCs weren't already!)

I think you're missing the point Paperlantern

Lots of statements mandate 1:1 support where the TA is not delivering ABA. The TA is just a continuous prescence for a child that has been determined to need such suppport.

It doesn't matter what your Masters assignment has led you to believe in terms of the effacacy of TAs.

If teh Statement madates that the child should have 1:1 TA support then that is exactly what must be legally delivered.

No ifs. No buts. No slight amendments for the benefit of school / teacher / other pupils /parental choice / what the teacher feels right....

Plain and simple. 1:1 must be delivered.

Yes, Hoxton, I agree. When they are rumbled they should be dismissed.

But no one ever pays the price for anything in this 'no blame' culture.

I've always throught that parents should automatically get the costs back for all their expenditure (legal and otherwise) should they suceed at Tribunal. The LA should pick up those costs. But even something as simple as this - for which provsiion already exists - is never enforced.

That would be a good starting point.

I was looking back at my DS statements in primary school, this was when I trusted LA and I was totally clueless on all this SEN mularky.

It is shocking at just how wishy washy it is however as he was in a specialist SLT unit, he managed to get his needs met reasonably well rather than if he simply had a TA and a SLT come in once a week.

I can see how teachers would be saying "huh, what do I do with this?" when they get a rubbish statement, but surely the teacher should be saying something about how vague it is...in my DS school they have been quick to voice their opinion on how much he no longer needs his statement (now they are being dragged through the courts) but to tighten it up, be more specific with the wording, etc.. in the past..not a peep!

Oh wet, this is something i will be fighting for when all my sh*t is over, I have spent £1000's over the years only to be back in the courts again and saying "I told you so"

Your forgetting Wet..someone pays the price, our children!! then when the child ends up on JSA, the government will be on thier case aboput finding a job?!?! How when the persons education was cocked up by the same government that didn't allow that person to have the provision n that needed to allow them to fully integrate into all aspects of adulthood and society

yes you are right, it would be illegal to remove a childs TA

But in the statements the teachers are given rarely is it specified exactly how the TA is to be used in that 1.1 time. That's the bit that is absent from the statement therefore the teacher uses their discretion.

You may view it as removing the TA from the child, teacher may see it as simply allowing the child greater independence where they are capable of it. Unless it went to tribunal who's to say who's right. One things for sure it will be a hell of a fight.

It's actually the bit that needs to be in the statement more than the hours. What the TA is to do and how the TA is too be trained. But most statements have the hours not the content because that's what gets the funding for the TA from the LEA.

Nothing is better than a well trained TA, realistically though education research suggests that's not often what you get.

I really dislike the teacher bashing, some teachers are bad some are excellent, most are doing there best with the limited understanding they have. They're opinions from a educational perspective reflect present sensibilities and understanding of best practice.

WE do have to listen to what they are saying as much as they have to listen to what we are saying. There's some really valid points in the thread if we can approach it with an open mind

Paper My ds does not have, and never has had an ABA TA.

I'm simply saying that the provision written into a statement must be delivered by law regardless of what a classroom teacher, SENCO or anyone else thinks.

If a teacher, school or senco are not happy with the specificity or lack of it, they have their opportunity to address this both at the statutory assessment stage or at the annual review stage. If they want to bring into the evidence the Diss report or anything else that might help the statementing officer more accurately identify need and provision then they can do so.

What they absolutely cannot do, is make it up after the statement is issued or after the Annual review.

I've never met a teacher of my ds that has ever listened to a word I have said, only the ones I have 'shouted', after months and months of being ignored.

Surely *PaperLantern, when you have a child with a Statement you read that entire Statement, which includes the advice from Educational Psychologists, Paed, Parents, school etc to form a complete view of that child.
Surely it's possible as a trained teacher, to use all that information to decide what you and the child's a TA need to concentrate on.

It's not just a matter of reading Parts 2 and 3 and looking at how many hours worth of TA support the child has. Before that child had a Statement they will almost ceratinly have had IEPs. These will be in their school file - probably many years worth of IEPs. These are all pointers as to what is required. It's the professional role of teh teacher to analyse this information and come uo with the right strategy for the child.

Teaching is not all about learning. It's also about understanding the barriers to learning and devising ways of breaking down those barriers on an individual basis.

Teacher doesn't normally see all that!!!

Ok to clarify certainly not at subject level secondary. Maybe possible with a class of 30 at primary but on average a secondary school subject teacher with deal with 5-6 times that number of children. they really don't have the time to read Educational Psychologists, Paed, Parents, school, even if they were made available to them

My son's at special needs school do. but none of the reports are good enough to give that kind of information. Maybe if they are private reports.

"Surely it's possible as a trained teacher, to use all that information to decide what you and the child's a TA need to concentrate on."
^^ this is what I was talking about earlier. Eg Teacher uses TA to work with group including your child, is that removing one to one provision or using her discretion? You might think one thing she might think another, only way you could resolve the question is by taking it to tribunal.

Which comes to Starlights point. yes starlight you are right, but most of it is subjective and down to interpretation.

When we argue with statements and take it to court, all we are doing is nailing down the room for interpretation.

But essentially we are telling a teacher how to teach. from a teachers perspective where is our teaching degree etc (well in my case )

what we are the experts on our children. Therefore there is always a difficult tightrope to tread from both parties perspective.

I am not into teacher bashing, my sons teachers have been good so far. It's not a personal problem with any particular person. What makes me sick is in the day and age where we are supposed to be so open and accepting people, in general are still ignorant to disability 'but he looks normal' , ' he seem to be doing ok'. Choosing to ignore things that don't smack them right in the face because it takes effort to understand it. Like people saying ' I wouldn't say he has x, y z' so what? I only want to hear the options of people informed to make those desisions. Like a peadiatrition, a phycologist. Not some person who's neighbour dog had xyz. Sorry I'm ranting. But if you fought to get provision and a expert backs a statement, it should be adhired too. They are not given out lightly and these kids are vulnerable. I totally agree that society is setting these kids up for jsa.

2boys - I don't know about you but I look back on my understanding of autism pre diagnosis (I thought I knew a fair amount) and I know now I really didn't know anything.

Same could be said about parents and teaching

The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. -- Socrates

Paper

I guessed that techers didn't actually read the entire Statements.

I thought the SEN COP (might be the Toolkit) directed that where a child had a Statemnet all teachers invloved with that child should familiarise themselves with the Statement.

Seems a pity that, having gone to the bother of getting all these detailed assessments, all the teacher relies on is the very selective summary of the LA Case Officer who all too often plays down the child's difficulties (to say money).

Pretty damned depressing when a teacher doesn't think the average LA commissioned report gives sufficient information for teachers to be able to plan teaching strategies.

But when we spend ut thousands to commission detailed private reports they are not even seen by those teaching our children.

Makes me wonder why SENs are so overlooked in schools.

Same could be said about parents and teaching

That's plain rude

I know far more than I ever should have had to learn, about teaching.

I had to learn because those paid to do the job were failing my ds at best and harming him at worst.

I had to learn, and then I had to fund people with professional qualifications to say what I could have said myself, and WAS saying myself to have half a chance of being heard.

Then I had to learn the law about my child's entitlement to receive what I was saying and I could have used that myself, except I wasn't listened to, - so I had to pay a lawyer to say the SAME DAMN THING (in fact I drafted all of the letters, paying for them to receive them from me, print them on their headed paper and then send them out.

Then I had to learn how to write IEPs and then TEACH the SENCO in how to make it SMART. In fact in 5 schools I had to rewrite the IEP to make it SMART (is that not shocking?).

And the more I learn, the more I understand how little so many teachers know about how to teach ds, how little they know about what constitutes data-drive evidence-based-practice, how little they know about their legal duties to fulfil the requirements of the statement, how little they listen and how defensive they are.

The majority of teachers in m/s that my ds came across failed him. Some blatantly and willingly failed him.

Ironically the one teacher who was able to wave a magic wand with him, who brought him on so much that I didn't recognise his books at parent's evening, then became the SENCO and was an absolute disaster at it.

Teacher actually said in my DS report that he was lucky to have his 1:1 provision!

Senco illegally removed very specific provision from
My ds beacuse she used her " judgement" and didn't think he needed it..didn't tell me she removed it by the way.

This is the type of ignorance and arrogance we as parents have to put up with, this is why my stance now is I will drag a school through hell at any cost out of principle now as im so sick of this provision not being given as set out in the statement nonsense, and if its vague then sit down with the parents, formulate a plan and ask the LEA to amend together, a LA is more likely to do this with the school on board, but one shouldnt just muddle and concoct whatever one feels like on the side.