1-2-1 workers in childcare numbers

[SoftFroggie]

I hope I explain thi correctly. My DS goes to a little pre-school where they have at least one child with a 1-2-1 worker each day, for various SN. The leader has just explained to me that when working out their adult-child ratios they don't have to count the child with the 1-2-1 worker (which seems fairly reasonable to me) but also that they can count the 1-2-1 adult in their adult numbers, thu allowing them to have more children because she's there, which doesn't seem reasonable. surely if she's there because there's a child who needs 1-2-1 care, she can't also be responsible fopr other kids?
my son isn't SN, but I'm keen that they have plenty of adults to look after their children. I understand that the 1-2-1 adults interact with the other children.
I rwally don't want to rock the boat, so if this isn't officially right can anyone suggest an approach to query / challenge it.
thanks for letting me post here!

does it depend on the SN? so the deaf boy's signer can deal with other children as well but the autistic boy really does need dedicated attention for his adult, for example?

sorry - another post - seems to me that the SN children are being short-changed: I wouldn't be happy if it was my son's worker ... i don't know their parents to talk to them.

i'll go away and see what you experts say now..

depends on the area. It isa VERY difficult to get some LEA's to fund sufficient 1 to 1 at pre-school age. My LEA is very anti it. His nursery were quite strict about there being enough cover for him but it basically meant that he could attend nursery foor fewer hours than NT children (because the LEA wouldn't fund the shortfall ) Getting a full time 1 to 1 funded at pre-school is very rare.

A lot of nurserys are happy for the kids just to wander (which is what ds1 did without 1 to 1- it wasn't that he was a danger to others, or even, in a safe environment lilke a nursery, himself- he just couldn't access any activities without 1 to 1). I didn't see the point of him being in nursery wiithout any interaction so I was happy to just let him attend for fewer hours with full 1 to 1. WOuld have been very tough if I'd wporked though as we would have needed the childcare.....

Softfroggie

As far as I can ascertain it is the same situation at dds nursery as at your ds nursery.

Dd has a full time 1-2-1 SSA, but she was actually already employed by the nursery as a Nursery Nurse, they didn't recruit her 'in addition' IYKWIM. Therefore, although the intake numbers have remained exactly the same, the number of adults available to the other 39 children has in effect dropped by 1. I think it is fairly standard practice, due to as JimJams has mentioned, funding issues (everything SN related comes down to 'funding issues' )

I would say though, that it has worked extremely well for dd. The nursery motto is 'Every bud deserves the chance to blossom', and she really, really has!

So sounds legit. As far as I can tell, the 1-2-1 staff were employed in addition, BUT the pre-school are now using their presence to take on additional children, which was why I was uncertain. There are only two full-time staff members, so the ratios are significantly affected by the question.
Jimjams - if the 1-2-1 staff are funded by the LEA should that remove them from the numbers?

I would add, the preschool have a reputation for being good with SN, which is one of the reasons I chose them (on the grounds that they see every child as individual with their own needs and abilites).

Thanks for your replies.

SF - 1-2-1 SSAs are funded by the LEA regardless of whether they were existing staff or are new recruits. Basically the school/nursery puts those members of staff on their payroll, but receives an additional amount in their annual budget to cover extra costs (or at least, that is the theory!!)

Have I understood correctly? (sorry if I use the wrong terms).
A child needs 1-2-1 attention to attend pre-school productively. The LEA fund (some limited amount of time for) that staff member.
THEN, because the pre-school have this extra staff paid for by the LEA specifically for that child, they can take on another 7 children, meaning that the original child doesn't get the extra attention after all??
That can't be right, surely?

SF- every LEA will have different rules- unless a child is statemented (which most LEA's try to avoid at pre-school- although parents can request it and go the tribunal route) they are entitled to diddlysquat. ds1's nursery would never have counted the staff in- but it was me that was affected as they simply refused to have him for longer than the hours he was funded. The nursery is very excellent and caring, absolutely brillaint with SN (in the eyes of parents of SN kids) and has a TERRIBLE reputation with the LEA because they don't accept the LEA's funding crap and fight for each child.

I dount there's a rule against what your nursery are doing, but the nursery may not be receiving any funding (for example ds1's nursery were always slightly out of pocket for having ds1). I can tell you what my LEA are happy to fund, but it will differ from LEA to LEA.

it happens at school age as well SF. A child comes with a statement, or some money is identified in action plus to pay for an LSA, the LSA then gets shared as another child needs help but isn't funded. Result - 2 kids with SN lose out. Welcome to the world of SN education! The only "right" in SN, as far as LEA's are concerned, is that it is cheap.

OK, thanks. can't see that anyone benefits from the system... i'll just accept that it doesn't make sense. thanks for the info.
no wonder you're all often so frustrated. bonkers!

the lea benefit because its cheap.