Moose here again. Ok, my brain is not functioning. Help! How do I proceed here?

[moosemama]

Hi

I will apologise now for the length of this, need to get it all straight in my head and could really do with advice on the best way forward.

I am sending myself round and round in circles trying to work out what my next move should be.

Anyone who was on the Friday thread last week probably already knows my latest boring tale of woe, but for those that don't:

Despite the request for SA etc being from me and not the school, LEA called the SENCO to complain that my amendments were unworkable and too extensive and to ask her to speak to me and get me to change them.

Went in to basically be told that the LEA are refusing to quantify and/or specify training/qualifications of personnel working with ds, even on developing his emotional literacy and working on social skills and language. They also told me that the statement I produced is too prescriptive and if I persist with it, no school in the borough will take him (subtle threat implied that that includes them).

They also tried to tell me that he has miraculously got over almost all his issues since the statementing process started (application only went in at the end of November and SA was finished in Feb) and no longer needs the support the professionals said he did. SO apparently my ds has been completely cured of having autism since February then! They even backtracked on saying he needs a laptop full time - when it was them that requested it in their SA report!

Finally managed to wheedle out of them that his statement comes with no funding and the bottom line (not stated directly of course) is that they don't want to stump up to properly support him. All the support he has had so far has been free, as in, no charge to the school.

They also dropped the bombshell that as soon as his statement is final, he loses his 1:1 autism teacher, who he has seen once a week for about 18 months now and has built up a really good relationship with - because they don't work with statemented children. Instead they would offer advice and support to a TA - but they refuse that to accept that the TA/LSA should be trained and experienced in working with children who have an ASD. So no matter what happens, the provision he will get will be of a lower standard than what he currently receives. Apparently this is due to the Inclusion Team's funding and policies. I was then informed that 'coincidentially' the school need his ASD teacher to work with another younger child in the school (despite the fact ds only sees her once a week for 45 minutes). The EP's report indicated that this session should continue and I had also been told by his ASD teacher that she is keeping his case next year for secondary transition and she had told her bosses that it would be detrimental to his mental health if she didn't. School contacted her boss, who then said his teacher cannot make that call and he won't be seeing her anymore once his statement is final.

Absolutely ridiculous, how on earth did they come up with a policy for involvement that says that once a clear need has been identified for a child via 1:1 contact and then proven through SA they then remove that support and replace it with someone less qualified and experienced. It makes no logical sense at all.

This all happened the day before the half term holiday started.

First stop was to try and call Parent Partnership, as coincidentally had been told good things about them by another parent only the night before. Their line was dead and obviously they aren't their in holidays.

Next call was to our EP, who is lovely and really 'for' ds. Unfortunately she said she could not say that the emotional literacy sessions can only be carried out specifically by an inclusion teacher, but she did agree that the school was wrong that this role could be carried out by a TA with just one day's ASD awareness training, as per all staff in the school. She suggested I look into what training is available for TA/LSAs and gave me a couple of numbers to call (again can't reach them till after the holiday) and said I should make some concessions where I am happy to on the statement and then ask them to re-issue, then when they re-issue ask for a meeting with everyone around one table to thrash out a final statement we all agree on.

She's great and agreed that dh and I have been more than reasonable, not asked for too much or for anything that ds doesn't need and isn't mentioned in the SA reports and have worked hard to keep a good working relationshio with all parties. She also said that, whether the school like it or not, the SA was carried out by professionals such as herself and the reports stand as a record of ds's needs, they cannot change that without going to AR and asking for reassessment, which obviously they can't do as the blooming statement isn't even finalised yet and even if they did the professionals would prove them wrong.

Unbelievably, the SENCO started the meeting by telling us that we are asking for Gold Standard support for ds 'when he is only entitled to an adequate education'. Dh nearly fell off his chair and jumped in saying they are crazy if they think what we are asking for is Gold Standard. If anything we have gone for the bare minimum in order to get the statement through in time for naming a secondary. All we're asking for is a total of 5 hours LSA contact, split into 4 daily sessions, to deal with organisational stuff and feelings diary entries, 45 minutes of ASD Teacher contact and a weekly social skills group! Hardly gold standard.

So, what do I do now. We are outside the timescale for being able to ask for a meeting - ie 15 days from when they issued the proposed. Judging by their behaviour so far, I seriously doubt they are going to issue another proposed statement, which leaves me with nothing to appeal and/or request a meeting against.

Would I be leaving myself wide open if I call the LEA and tell them that I am not happy to recind my amendments and therefore they either finalise as is, so I can (and will) appeal or I would like a meeting now to sort it all amicably so that they can finalise?

Thing is, during the meeting with the SENCO she basically dangled the carrot of saying if we don't finalise soon, we will miss the opportunity to name a secondary and will have to go through the mainstream admissions process - although part of me thinks that in the current climate that might not be a bad thing with all our options being academies. Apparently she's had the forms through for all the other statemented children already - or so she said.

I feel like I am just spinning my wheels here, not being able to make logical sense of how best to move forward effectively. I have been in bed all holiday bar Monday and Tuesday, when I made myself go out with the family so that the boys' holiday wasn't ruined by my health and my neuro symptoms are getting worse by the day, but I have to get all this sorted out as having it hanging over me is just causing more and more stress.

IPSEA. Or SOS sen.

Let them think it through for you.... They will ask you the right questions, and together you can formulate your next move. Time to let someone else guide you instead of worrying about it on your own. X

Thanks madwoman. I think you might be right, I need professional advice here as I am making no headway on my own.

They are closed this week though and I'm not even sure what to ask them if/when I do get through.

Your big mistake here Moose is believing a single thing they all tell you. As a result you're getting more and more stressed becise of all the misinformation etc.

You need to stop listening to their crap and start focusing on what you want.

You have actually had a meeting about the Proposed Statement, albeit one called by the LA for you to see the school SENCO. You can now ask for another meeting as you should still be within the 15 days since that one.

But, in the circustances, with the LA having made their position clear, you're unlikely to be able to sort this out amicaly so I'd be inclined to let them issue the Final Statement and take it to appeal. You can carry on talking while awiting the hearing date and the fact that a Tribunal is pending should help focus the LA's mind.

You are not asking for the earth - don't let them think you are. If you think your DS needs autism outreach then try to get it into the Statement and the LA will have to deliver.

We had the Gold Standard line given to us to - like you'd go to your GP for 'average, you know, off Wikki medical care, nothing specific, don't worry about the Med School bit - its way over-rated' - care!

I googled cases where 'quantified and specified support' was an issue and found loads - I'm pants at doing links here - I'll see if I can work it out - back in a mo! xx

www.11kbw.com/articles/docs/JMC_Edu_education_sen_dda_nov_2006.pdf

Ok think I may have ballsed that up - sorry x

'what do I do?'

Tell them the whole thing. They'll know what to ask you, so that you can make sense of it. Sometimes we're too close.

The fact they are closed this week is a bit of a pita, but does give you an excuse to avoid thinking about it, as your hands are tied and there is nothing you can do until Monday. Nothing at all. And the fact you have a plan to call them and so you know your next step might alleviate the anxiety a bit?

None of us can keep up the level of focus required forever, we all need to ignore the idiocy and take time out occasionally. So this is your time out. Ignore it. Refuse to give brain space to it. It unfortunately isn't going away, so you can open that can of worms again on Monday (or Sunday night, so you have your head ready). Nothing is going to change over the next two days whether you fret about it or not.

Any chance of you finishing the hols on a relaxing note? Is there anything you could plan tomorrow that you could cope with, just to get some fresh air? Or would dh take over and let you sleep it off be better? What do you need? (other than a magic wand and for the LA to stop being an arse?)

with ipsea - you can email them now and then hopefully you will get a reply quickly at the beginning of next week. i emailed them one evening at 8pm and they replied by 9am the next morning - was helpful to see the advice written down

Definitely with WA here, what you want is all in dd's statement and with far more hours so you are definitely not asking for something unprecedented.How the statement is met and from what funding isn't your problem tbh it will be down to the named school to make representations to the LA if they can't meet it from allocated funding at the end of the day. And the LA will have to fund if the school can't as there is already case law on that.Don't allow them to distract you from what you want, go for that and let them argue about who's going to pay for it among themselves. Good luck x

Agree appeal, thats all they will listen to.
I would also put what you have been told in writing and send it to them as your minutes of the meeting.
Our outreach teams don't work direct with children either - only give advice to TAs - although why getting a statement means less support is bizarre!
Yet once we got to tribunal they told the tribunal that outreach staff could come and see my son daily! They just lied about the whole service.
So putting in writing that autism outreach is to be removed and will not be available with a statement and the EP comments about untrained staff being unable to deliver the programmes will help with the appeal
In effect they are saying what your child needs cannot be met by a mainstream school as it goes beyond what their mainstream schools offer
The answer is not to pretend the child does not need it but to buy in the support or place the child where there is autism expertise on hand.
The funding stuff is nonsense. What they mean is that they have delegated SEN money to schools. If the school says the delegated money is not enough then that is between them and the LA.
Is it secondary for 2013? If so then they don't have to name a school until Feb and that will still be before the other places are confirmed.
What you are asking for is very modest!
Once they know you will appeal they should back down. Are they seriously going to go to tribunal saying they cannot provide a TA with expertise or any autism specialist support? Of course not, the tribunal would then be forced to look to indep providers and they won't want to do that.

Thank you so much for your replies everyone.

WetAugust, the problem is I am not sure I am physically capable of going through a tribunal. It makes me so sad and angry that we can't just sit down round a table, put our cards on the table and come to some sort of amicable agreement. I know, I know it just doesn't work that way and honesty isn't something that's included as part of the process.

Bjkmummy, thanks for that, I might try emailing IPSEA, as I am far better at typing than phonecalls just at the moment and I can get dh to read through it and make sure I haven't made any glaring mistakes or omissions.

Agnes, you're right, I should put in writing what the SENCO said at the meeting, I will get dh to write something this weekend - his memory is far more accurate than mine.

I am about the funding thing. I don't understand why they didn't just issue a Note in Lieu if the statement comes without funding. If the school are saying they can't provide what the Statement provides from their SEN budget, then surely he needs to be on a higher band.

They are saying that one day of whole staff autism awareness INSET is enough and the TA shouldn't need and won't be given any more than that, other than back-up from outreach as and when necessary. This is despite the fact that they want said TA to replace his outreach teacher, who works with him on anxiety management, emotional literacy and social/communication and has struggled with him despite working with children who have ASD for 15+ years, as well as being highly qualified in the area. EP agreed with me that you cannot develop communication skills and emotional literacy social skills in a child who has ASD with just a one day primer on ASD in general and that while back-up from outreach would be required/necessary, it's no substitute for knowing what to do as soon as a problem arises, instead of having to muddle through, then make a phonecall to outreach to discuss it and not having another session to deal with the problem for a week, by which time it's highly likely that another issue will have arisen.

I am so scared of telling them to finalise and then either not being able to cope with a tribunal or being ineffective and not getting what we want from that through my er, crapness.

Sorry, yes it is secondary for 2013, but we were told at the SEN admissions info meeting we have to name a school in July and it will be confirmed to us in February.

Moose, - the level of messing around and LIES you are having to deal with is an indication that the ONLY way of dealing with this is through appeal.

Actually, I think a tribunal is unlikely because REALLY, you aren't asking for much.

Don't be pressured by the admissions rubbish. You are being lied to again.

Even if a school is full when you eventually get around to naming it in a statement your child has to be admitted. It would be sensible to forewarn the school that they will be having an extra child so they can make the arrangements or admit one less etc. but it doesn't actually matter that much.

See, there you go again worrying about funding Stop it.

Focus on getting a Statement with the correct provision in it.

If you couldn't face a Tribunal what about your DH?

If neither of you can tghey lay it on thick to IPSEA that you need help.

It's more scary to be in the limbo land that you currently are, not knowing what the LA will eventually decide to do tahn it is when you are in control.

So write to the LA expressing your disappointment that they were unwilling to accept any of your proposed amendments and asking them to finalise the Statement for the sole purpose of appealing to SENDIST.

Having lit the blue touch paper, stand back and wait to see what happend next. You've put the ball in their court. You are in charge.

And grow some... Stop beleiving you're crappy. I was crappy once but anger distilled that crappiness into effectiveness. Get angry.

Moose, - I see 'band' and see a good tribunal argument.

Banding is illegal, or at least I bet it is the way it is being used. You are not asking for funding. You are asking for your child's needs to be met. If the school are unable to find a cost-effective or affordable way of delivering the provision to meet those needs then they can either go on accountancy courses or start lobbying the LA. This has nothing to do with your child.

I think I'm in denial about it Star. I know no-one wants to go to tribunal and in truth most people shouldn't have to, it just feels like everyone is being funnelled there these days, even for things that should be simple to resolve without it. It's such a huge unnecessary stress and waste of everyone's time and funds.

What I would like to happen is that we appeal, then go to mediation and get it sorted there. I have heard good things about the local mediation bods and I'm pretty sure having someone impartial there would help cut through the crap.

When an LA/school/CT start talking about funding, blink at them then state simply that you have asked no-one for any money and you'll leave it to the professionals to arrange the specified and quantified provision however they see fit. You have no need to see the books.

So do that. Appeal and then ask to mediate.
Its going to be compulsory to mediate soon anyway.
You shouldn't end up at tribunal because you are asking for very cheap provision. Having started the appeal they have to stick to a timescale and will want to save the money of tribunal
the admissions stuff is not true.
Schools won't even be having their open days until the Autumn of this year.
Children with statements get places allocated by Feb, then the rest get told in March / April time.

WetAugust - dh is lovely bless him and nice to have to sit there and look supportive, but he doesn't have a clue and there's no way he'd be able to do it and I suspect he would refuse anyway.

Had to laugh at your grow some comment. I just sent a text to my mum saying I seriously need to grow a pair! Thing is I used to be effective, even had a rep for being the go-to person when you needed something organised, unfortunately that was before my brain developed a network of swiss cheese style holes and now I am anything but.

Starlight. I don't think anyone has said bands - that was just me - what it actually says on our LEA's website is:

"Under X's scheme for the delegation of funding for Statemented pupils, the LA will allocate a sum of money equivalent to (x) units. This is in addition to the resources ordinarily available to the school for children with special educational needs.

The school will make arrangements through their delegated budget to ensure that appropriate staffing, training and resources are deployed to secure provision as specified in Part 3 of the Statement."

I still don't understand how we have managed to get a statement that comes with no funding though.

I did actually face up to the SENCO and say "All I want is my son's needs to be met, I don't care who funds it or how, the statement clearly sets out what his needs are and what the provision should be to meet those needs - it's your job, not mine to work out how that is funded."

What they are really balking at is my insistence that the person who works with ds is appropriately trained and experienced in ASD and that I had the audacity to quantify contact in terms of hours/minutes and frequency. Unfortunately, even the SA reports only talk about contact in terms of 'daily' and 'frequent' and 'throughout the day' etc. They are saying that if I tie his support sessions down to eg '4 specific times a day for a minimum of X minutes' then there is no flexibility available to them and for example, if the 'qualified' person who works with ds is off sick or the school day is different eg school trip, they are contravening the statement by not adhering to the strict wording. Hence too prescriptive.

Wet, we have been told to visit schools and meet with the SENCOs this month, as the Open Days etc are too busy for properly discussing your child's needs. The idea is that we choose a school this July, everyone gets an additional review meeting to state their preference then we get told our allocation in Feb. Everyone was told this at an LEA run transition evening.

I would ask for that to be cut out of the statement tbh.

I argued that for my last. I said the statement should be about ds, not about funding arrangements. People should be able to read it and understand his needs and provision, not waste their precious time learning about the values of units and protocol for delegated funding. Also, the statement should be transferable and other schools/LAs have different funding arrangements that will have no bearning on the child's needs or provision.

Why should your ds put up with provision that meets the schools 'flexibility needs'?

And if that is okay, why can't he put up with their 'lack of funding needs', 'lack of training needs', 'staff holiday needs' etc.

Unfortunately, statements of SEN, have become increasingly 'statements of schools needs to 'manage' a child' and not really about the child's needs. Unfortunately, this is probably what they are used to so although they are being pita, they might not understand how RIGHT you actually are iyswim.

The law states that any flexibility written into a statement should be due to an evidenced need of the child for that flexibility and not for the school/LA's convenience.

This is the law!

Thank you Star, that is what I tried to tell her, that the flexibility should be because he needs it, not that they do. They have to provide equal standard care for all the other children in the school should a teacher go off sick, so why should my ds settle for not having the provision he needs set down, in case his TA goes off sick one day.

I was sure I'd read that in the SENCOP, but couldn't find it again in my brain addled state. Think I will go and do a search of the pdf now and use that in my response.

That's exactly how it feels, like instead of the LEA telling the school what to provide, they have actually asked the school what it is willing to provide and are now refusing to put anything else in the statement. Effectively rendering the statement pointless.

OK - why don't you write your version of the Statemnet and send it to the LA. That should open negoiations.