Is it appropriate for a fresh graduate to be TA for an ASD child with significant needs? Am I entitled to know the qualifications, experience and training of the TA?

[ChrisInNeed]

DS (7) has severe S&L impairment, ASD & dyslexia. Also has significant OT needs including sensory ones.

Currently in the mainstream primary school, he is receiving 22.5hrs per week 1:1 TA support - as per the statement. This is provided by two TAs (15 hrs AM +7.5 hrs PM).

The current TA (AM 3 hrs/day) was assigned to DS before he got a statement. I believe she had Nil teaching/TA experience when she joined- not even with NT kids - yet was assigned to support an ASD child with significant needs! As you can imagine she had a challenging time being thrown in at the deep end straightaway. DS obviously didn't get the benefit of a trained person and so her learning was effectively at his expense. As she started before the final statement was issued, there was little I think I could have done.

She takes him on a sensory circuit daily - learnt to do so on the job.

I was told last week that this TA is now leaving at the end of the summer term and that a replacement TA is being assigned to DS from tomorrow.

I asked the HT to let me know her qualifications, experience and training with working with ASD children with severe S&L impairment and sensory needs and was refused as mentioned above.

HT told me "Whilst we cannot share with you personal details concerning the new TA, I would like to assure you that she is a a graduate appointment and is as equally well qualified to meet the needs of DS as his previous support teacher. We have every confidence in her ability to work well with DS and support his continuing progress at the school. The new TA will initially work alongside the existing one and will undertake an induction period, she will also receive any appropriate training to support her role."

My view is that the new person should be experienced before she starts working with him and not gain the experience at his expense.

His Final Statement states "Adults working with him should have experience and understanding of ASD".

My Questions:

1.Is it appropriate that a fresh graduate be assigned as a TA for an ASD child with significant needs and gain the experience at his expense?

2.If not, am I entitled to say no? How should I go about doing it?

1. Am I justified in seeking for the TA to be appropriately trained before she is assigned to support DS?

4.Am I entitled to know the qualifications, experience and training of the TAs assigned to him?

5.How can I find out if the HT refuses to share this details on the grounds that she cant reveal third party data under the Data Protection Act?

1. Possibly - the statement doesn't say 'must' it says 'should' and 'should' is legally an advisory term not a requirment. A fresh graduate may well have experience that isn't backed by a qualification and many of the very best TAs are actually the least 'qualified'. I think that an ability to connect with the child and motivate them is more important than paper qualifications, personally.

1. See above. You have no right to say no. You can't influence operational matters such as staffing.

1. IMO, No. Unless there is a specific communication system he uses which means that they wouldn't be able to communicate (e.g. PECs user with non-PECs trained TA or Makaton user with non-makaton trained TA) and even then, only if the statement specifically states that the TA must be experienced/qualified in PECs/Makaton usage.

1. No. Not in the slightest. It's none of your business. Just as any other member of staff. The TA is employed by your DS's school and just happens to be assigned to your DS. The HT could change who is assigned to your DS at any point - do you think you're entitled to know the qualifications of anyone who may at some point become his TA??

1. You can't. The only way you might find out is if the TA mentions their qualifications/experience in conversation with you.

Agree with lougle. It's because your existing Statement isn't tight enough so you have no right to any of this.

However, during your appeal, you can attempt to clarify the qualifications of TAs/teachers/therapists etc in part 3. If Tribunal agree with you (even if they don't agree with changing part 4), then this will be written into your DS's new post-tribunal Statement.

It happened in my case - every single one of my DS's teachers and therapists have to have very very specific qualifications. The Tribunal agreed. So it's written into my DS's Statement.

I agree. Needs to be specified and quantified on statement including exact qualifications and number of years experience on the statement. This is why you are appealing. You need to quote Indi reports that do what you need in your amendments to the WD.

Both of the boys' TAs didn't yet have all their childcare NVQ qualifications when they were picked to work with them. Both are excellent, though. before DS1 had his statement, he had a supposedly experienced LA resource TA sent him to work with him for a few mornings a week, in nursery and she was absolutely totally and utterly wrong for him. It was a relief when she phoned up, one day and said she wasn't going to work with him, any more, as her other charge needed her though it took a while for DS1 to get over his dread of mornings when he thought she'd be there.

Many thanks to all for your views.

Didn't appreciate the legal difference between 'should' and 'must'. Thanks for highlighting.

I do agree that the ability & skills of the person are important too and that just having certain paper qualifications and training does not necessarily mean the person will make a suitable a TA.

Whilst I am not expecting the new TA assigned to have huge experience in all the SEN areas impacting DS, I do think it is not fair to DS for a fresh graduate without any TA/teaching experience to be assigned straightaway, especially given his significant needs.

I expect the TA will have to go through two big learning curves - how to be a TA and how to understand the SEN needs, and DS will lose out whilst the TA learns the ropes.

I know everyone has to start somewhere and I think it is reasonable to expect that a new TA assigned to a SEN child has had some experience supporting at least NT pupils and also had some training & understanding of the SEN needs (S&L impairment, ASD, Dyslexia) etc. before they start supporting.

The danger with any young graduate who starts as a TA is that after a year or so they go off to do their PGCE leaving you high and dry. This is a popular way of getting onto teacher training courses.

The advantage is that they are young and untainted by useless dogma, so will be willing to learn and probably to do any additional specialist training you may ask for as it all adds to their CV.

A non-expert who wants to learn how do things properly and has a genuine rapport with your kid is much, much better than someone jaded, bored who doesn't even LIKE your child but are only in the job cos it's family friendly hours. Beware what the LA regard as training - one afternoon 6 years ago "ASD awareness training" doesn't cut it imho but according to LA standards that's as good as you'll get without a fight!

DS had both and we both much preferred the young graduate (who could be persuaded to do Aba-lite . He did really well that year - the ONLY school year that wasn't a total disaster in a 5 year school career.

Don't forget also that, legally, your DS is not entitled to a 'good' education or 'the best' education. He is only entitled to an 'adequate' education, where adequate is defined as allowing him to make progress commensurate with his age, ability aptitude and any SEN. No more.

That might be something to hold close when you're working on your tribunal claim because the minute you suggest anything more they will put you in your place.

It might also help to look up TA pay rates to gain some perspective - they are paid to be glorified babysitters, not "educators" - that is what the far better paid professional teacher does.

The reason so many special schools and units have closed down nationally is because TA's are a CHEAP solution. I have major issues with this as I feel the children most in need of highly skilled, experienced, trained educators are the least likely to get access to them in practice.

I think if we are going to use the TA model then we should start by doubling their pay before we increase our expectations of them too! Many are hired for crap money on very precarious contracts.

Your buzz words to work to are as lougle says "adequate education" and also "access to the national curriculum". every demand you make has to map to one of those or you'll be written off as greedy and grasping.

Just to clarify, indie expert assessments reveal that DS is not making adequate progress.

He has average nonverbal cognitive skills (43 percentile per the WNV) and still on P levels in most areas in his final term of Year 2 so not accessing the NC. (Details: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/special_needs/2075961-Can-P-Levels-scores-using-PIVATS-be-used-to-determine-if-academic-progress-is-adequate )

Am I still expecting a lot in seeking that the TA's assigned to him are not total freshers?

Effectively in the eyes of the law - yes you are expecting a lot. That doesn't mean however you won't get it - so long as you phrase your argument very, very carefully in order to meet legal requirements as opposed to the world as you wish it were.

As a parent I get totally where you are coming from - you have to justify common sense a LOT in the SN world I'm afraid!

Also to add that the DS has a separated workstation area in his class where he spends the bulk of his time with the TA (as he so far behind what the normal class curriculum).

The TA is effectively DS's class teacher and so it is important that she is an 'educator'.

I don't think you can conflate the issues around his progress in that way. A child may have superior nonverbal skills but if the medium of learning is in the main part verbal, then any impairment of verbal skills will impact progress made. similarly, in ideal sensory conditions more progress may be made, but an 'adequate'education won't give the best sensory conditions, merely the best a school can do. Even in a special school with only 10 children per class, what may be ideal in a sensory sense for one child may negatively impact another child and whilst they will do their very best to minimise the impact each child has on the other it is unrealistic to expect that they could completely cater for each child and create ideal learning conditions.

"The TA is effectively DS's class teacher and so it is important that she is an 'educator'."

That's not going to wash. Legally the teacher is still responsible for the education of your DS. Teachers delegate work out to support staff but the responsibility for setting work, next steps, assessment, etc., remains with the teacher.

Sorry, I'm not trying to knock you down, but you've got to understand that there are hundreds of children with a profile as you describe -it's the 'bread and butter'of the SEN system.

There are hundreds of children using a workstation in the corridor at the back of the classroom with a TA because they're so far behind all the other kids.

You need to separate out the injustice (which is palpable in the tone of your posts) from the provisions and needs of your DS. Work out what he needs to progress.

IMO your approach at the moment is a bit 'scattergun'.

I agree with boc about some of the worse TAs are the most experienced and qualified.
Dds current ta is a higher level ta with 20 years ta experience working alongside sen children. unfortunately this means that she thinks she knows best and is not prepared to learn how to work with dd as an individual, resulting in dd hating her. it also means that she knows every trick that the lea/ school have taught her and uses that to her advantage. she has also used salt programmes and strategies with dd just because they have worked with other children, this has knocked dds confidence.

Unfortunately in the UK the current education system is NOT designed for a TA to be an educator. My own child was a victim of this modern inclusion - stuck at a workstation by himself and learning nothing. It was 6 hours a day, 5 days a week utterly wasted.

It gradually dawned on me that if I my son remained in mainstream education to satisfy the "inclusion" ideologists that the best I could ever hope for was that he'd be kindly babysat, to expect him to be TAUGHT anything was beyond the scope of the current educational system!

In the end I decided that actually by virtue of my own efforts to self-educate about my son's condition that I was best qualified to be be his "TA". After all, I'd gone on as many courses, read as many books etc as I could lay my hands on, and noone is more motivated to see DS succeed than I. DS is now officially home educated with the help of one of the many British NC compliant online schools that have cropped up in recent years.

My DIY approach has met with considerable opposition from the educational establishment who would argue that being excluded from all music, pe, assemblies etc and stuck by yourself at a workstation all day is better "socialisation" than I can provide. . It seems not only does this parent's definitions of what constitutes an adequate education diverge from that of the establishment's, but so do views on socialisation and inclusion!

You can only work for now, with the system we have. The first stage of that is to accept it's limitations, for only when you see the gaps can you hope to fill them. Your task for now is simply to win the best deal you can for your son under this system. A revolution is outside the scope of your current project. .

I wouldn't fully agree with lougie. In the context of a statement, if it says that a child "should" receive something, then they must receive it. It isn't like a statute, and the courts would certainly interpret it that way.

Also, if the statement requires that the TA to have experience of ASD, she must have that experience before she starts working with the child in question, and the parent is entitled to know what that experience is. Again, if that went before the courts an LA that tried to argue otherwise would get nowhere.

icimoi - "has experience of" could mean met one child for half an hour 3 years ago and spoke to her Mum on a school trip in LA land.

"Must have experience of working with children on the autistic spectrum within an educational setting and role in a full time capacity for a minimum of 3 years" is more meaningful in real terms.

The whole darn system is like getting through a series of tricks and traps at every stage of the game. Except that it's not a game, it's your child's future on the line .

Yes, bochead, "has experience of" could be interpreted that way, but any LA who tried to argue that in court would get laughed out of the room. It is perfectly obvious that the requirement for experience means more than that.

I agree that it's desirable for it to be specified to give them less wriggle room, but never assume that the courts are so stupid as to accept manifestly absurd arguments from LAs.

I know it seems dire but having been dragged through the system quite some and had my expectations of what is actually available even if you fight short of death, totally dashed, I would go for a newbie any day as they are the best chance you have of any potential for being treated like you know something about your own child.

Ici, the tribunal panels aren't stupid but nor are they independent or impartial. Their position is akin to a 'peer review' of provision and they have been a part of the culture that sets expectations. They are also dealing on a daily basis with quite horrific law-breaking and would not concern themselves with the semantics of how trained a trained member of staff actually is if their is no recourse in law for their dismissal of the issue.

frustrating I know but TBH I don't think you have a say at all.
You can point the paragraph re ASD experienced personnel only should work with your son & hope he takes it on board & Interprets it in the manner it is meant.

You never know she may be fantastic!
FWIW my sons amazing, fab TA while she had a few years TA experience with a number of children, she has no qualifications and as far as I know she has no ASD training. But she is a calm, caring, flexible person who totally gets ds2.
He did once have a very well qualified HLTA working with him for a while who couldn't communicate with me, let alone ds2.
Fingers crossed you get a good'un!

Icimoi - have you had that fight to the death Star mentions yet?

It's not merely desirable, it's an absolute necessity to have everything specified and quantified as your goal. Otherwise there's hardly any point in going to all the effort of a Tribunal in the first place.

Starlight, it isn't a tribunal that would be dealing with the failure to provide what is in a statement, it is a court. The attitude of judges does tend to be significantly different from the attitude of tribunals, and anyway they themselves are bound by precedent.

Bochead, yes, I have had the fight. The LA gave in when faced with the prospect of having to persuade a judge that "experienced in ASD" means "met a child with ASD once" and apparently were advised by their lawyers that they hadn't a hope in hell.