One to one: a good thing?

[Jerbil]

Still waiting for news of statement but it has been made very clear to me by school and parent partnership my son will not get 1 to 1. I support the fact he doesn't need someone watching his behaviour (I'm lucky he's well behaved), but he does need support in a lot of other ways.

He needs support academically as he has understanding difficulties particularly with spoken word, so instructions need to be broken down. He zones out so needs prompting and OT interventions to regulate himself.

He needs prompting as his organisation skills are not great. He needs support at play if he's struggling. He has a lot of clothing issues that may mean during the colder months he'd be better off inside, and would be happier with company otherwise he's bored and wants to go out in extreme cold weather, and freezes.

Numerous other things too.

When offering a statement I know the LAs always seem to give this in hours? But I'm old now they have a way of thinking that if they say 20 hours it doesn't mean he'll get 20 hours of one to one.

I'm not saying he needs someone to be by his side all day, but he does need someone to fully understand his needs and to be on hand if needed, and to help him with the things he struggles with.

My LA will not put one to one in statements at all anymore, even with children with complex needs!! The sentence that they put in which talks about hours is unlawful and when parents question it they are told that one to one stifles children!!

They force parents to tribunal in order to get the support that their child needs.

I havent been able to get a statement at all for Dd3 who needs someone to support her but is academically able. We were told only this week that they wont give statements on what ifs!

You need to go through all the reports on your son and try to get a clear understanding of exactly when and how he needs support so that some hours can be written in. Will the school senco help you??

'I'm not saying he needs someone to be by his side all day, but he does need someone to fully understand his needs and to be on hand if needed, and to help him with the things he struggles with.'

Can this and all of his other needs be catered for by a full-time class TA that is shared with other pupils?

You don't necessarily need hours written in like '20 hours 1:1#.

You can have. 1:1 (Exclusively for him) support at all break times and lunch time. During literacy and numeracy, 1:1 exclusively for him to prompt, break down instructions and develop independence skills'. During PE, 1:1 exclusively for him to develop on the OT programme and develop independence in changing and to feedback progress on a daily basis to parents.

TA to deliver 1:1 SALT programme of 45mins daily, and to sit in to weekly SALT sessions with qualified SALT to observe and have techniques demonstrated. etc etc.

It annoys me when statementing is used as a synonym for 1-1.

No dc needs "1-1" as their SEN intervention- they need "something" which that "1-1" person does (or 2-1 person, or whatever ratio- I couldn't give a flying fig, if the needs are met)

Suppose a profoundly deaf dc was given 1-1. But the LSA knew no BSL, couldn't be lipread, and had no clue how to make sure the dc 'got' as much education as the hearing dc. Complete waste of time. The dc wd be much better off sitting close to the teacher with a decent textbook & no LSA at all.

A highly trained LSA with an instinct for making dc happy plus massive experience of both TEACHH and ABA - plus a decent teacher- could get the entire KS1 national curriculum into a full table of year 2s who all have HFA

Quality not quantity. Trouble is, usually you get neither.

Agree with star that some activities will work best as 1-1. But it's the activity which makes those 1-1 hours worthwhile. Otherwise it's babysitting.

I'm in the same position . DS doesn't need 1:1 all the time, just certain activities, probably about 5 hours a week. Small group could work really well for him most of the time.

His draft EHC plan is rubbish as the LEA hasn't included all his educational needs and the provision in neither specified nor quantified, that's what I'm going to fight rather than getting full time 1:1 for him.

Thanks all, for responses. It's so hard cos while he doesn't need someone to supervise him he needs people to be there for him. Ideally, this should be achievable in the class as it is but it is evident that this does not happen. There are so many things to consider for DS and if you get it wrong we know about it. Initially at home, but then when things fail at school we get fallout through OCD and this is really damaging to him. Pitiful to watch. Star - thanks for advice and wording. Brill as always! We are hoping for SALT to be recommended as his assessments were quite shocking. It's good to know this should be listed.

My DS had full time 1:1 for 5 years. It has it's benefits but he ended up becoming reliant on them and manipulated them to do his work for him!
I disagree about it stifling him because the 1:1 actually enabled him to access education (although basic), without it he wouldn't have been in school at all.
The latest evidence shows that full time 1:1 can be detrimental to a child's learning but it depends on the child and how complex their needs are, obviously in DS's case it was a good thing.

Absolutely fairgame there are times when without 1 2 1 some children would not be able to access the curriculum at all.

I agree too - the last three specialist schools, DD was at, all felt she needed 1:1 in class, and they already had high staff to pupil ratios. The LA agreed to fund 1:1 for her in the specialist FE college now, without a word from us, in a class of 6 - 7, plus a teacher and two TAs anyway. DD needs constant redirecting back on to the task on hand, and she can get stuck in a fixed way of thinking, when she is actually going off at a tangent. For instance, she could be asked to paint some grass in a picture - she would still be doing it 2 hours later. She would never get to access the curriculum without 1:1 in the classroom. She has two different people as her 1:1, which avoids the danger of too much emotional dependence.

This business about "stifling" them is rubbish IMO. LAs come up with all sorts of excuses when they don't want to fund something! There are always ways round these things. Another common one is that they don't like to specify speech therapy, as speech therapists need flexibility - actually the LA can call a review and amend a statement at any time! Anyway, they can always specify a minimum, which leaves the speech therapist free to provide more at any time, if they want, but the parents know there is a safety net.

If you put all the needs into Part 2, then they have to make the provision to meet the need. For example, I put that staff have to check DD has chosen appropriate clothes for the weather into Part 2 (in a residential school, where I don't get to adjust her choice of clothes for the day) - because in her case, if she gets too hot or too cold, it will set off seizures.

PS - if you are wondering why 3 specialist schools; its because her needs changed in a big way; then the LA named a school, which nobody said could meet her needs except the school - we went to Tribunal for another school and won!

The evidence that states 1:1 as detrimental is based on the woefully inadequate training and experience of SEN TAs coupled with an attitude of teachers to plan for the child with SEN as an afterthought if at all (assuming tA has full responsibility for their education).

We'll trained 1:1 can not only enable the child to be fully inclusive but also independent.

My DS 16 has had a 1:1 since starting school. They have all been trained interveners and most of his teachers are MSI trained.

It is a SS and I know we are very lucky!