More LA nonsense

[inappropriatelyemployed]

AR for DS was a month ago. DS has been having loads of problems and can't cope with peer group. Only going into school with me. Too complicated to explain.

Anyway, this was discussed at AR. He's in Y5 so we had to discuss transition too and given the problems he has been having we agreed we could not make firm recommendations.

LA wanted recommendations from meeting to go to 'Panel' as they want 'Panel' to make recommendations about placement for secondary. SENCO says can't make recs about transition as situation complicated. Will review in summer.

LA say issues arising out of AR meeting will go to Panel (we are asking for more SLT) and wanted a letter from school confirming that transition will be covered further later. SENCO wrote and confirmed this and highlighted his difficulties at the moment.

Got letter today. No amends to statement. Their reasons:

-His level of provision is appropriate

• Statement previously amended in Feb
  
• can be looked at again in a 'transition review' in summer
  

There is no evidence they have even considered his current situation or the request for SLT.

His statement was amended in Feb after they dragged last years AR recommendations to Tribunal. They had nothing to do with SLT

I can't see that this 'transition review' has any legal status as opposed to a AR. If they chose to wait til then, and didn't amend, I wouldn't have a right to appeal.

I'm wondering whether the failure to specifically consider the amendments suggested in a reasoned way is actually judicially reviewable?

[ouryve]

I'm sure they're supposed to make a decision within 10 weeks, hothead. It's outlined in the SENCOP, for what that appears to be worth, at the moment.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

In my case, they have made a decision. It's a decision not to amend. But they are justifying that by saying school have requested a transitional review in summer so they can look at all the information then.

But it seems to be this consideration of transition has nothing to do with the AR process which they have made a decision on.

In think Hothead, there is not a limit about when a decision after an AR meeting should be made save for it being subject to the overall requirement that the statement is reviewed within a year of the last review/initial issue of statement.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

bumping in case

[StarlightMcKenzie]

'I'm wondering whether the failure to specifically consider the amendments suggested in a reasoned way is actually judicially reviewable?'

How do you know they haven't 'considered' them? Just because there is no written proof. You know how this will go right?

The same as SEN decision panels. No minutes but discussed by 'highly experienced professionals' who made a judgement. The new statement IS the minutes blah blah blah.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Yeah, you are right Star.

Looks like another appeal.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Well, he's not even in class at the moment so how his current provision is 'appropriate' to meeting his SEN is beyond me.

Do we put up with another year of sitting outside class for part of the day or even all day? Even if he manages to do this without me, he is still not accessing the curriculum or even playing with his peers.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

TBH if you are seriously looking for Indi next, then the more of a failure things are at the moment the better your case.

You don't have to let HIM fail, even though his placement fails iyswim. If he becomes a school refuser you could get home tuition whilst you are waiting and your chances of independent are increased. You could subsidise with extra-curricular social activites perhaps.

It's so hard. I'm just making some suggestions to think about, not advising. I don't think there are really any palatable options so it is a matter of thinking long term and strategicly.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Thanks. My view is that he is school refusing at the moment. If a child cannot be in school without a parent, then he is not capable of being in that school.

This is despite all efforts to accommodate him by school and the EP. This is failing as a placement and I don't think he needs to be out of school for there to be evidence of that.

Itis entirely accepted that if I don't go in, he doesn't go to school. School are fully supportive of that position and have written to the LA to confirm that. The EP has acknowledged he is only in school because of me.

The best we can hope for is that a new TA is able to support him outside the class (this means reception - he can't even be near the classrooms) and develop an entirely personalised curriculum for him.

That still means he cannot access many of the other things the other children can.

Indy is not necessarily an easy answer though as you can see from my other post!

[StarlightMcKenzie]

No indy isn't an easy answer. There are no schools for my ds. They just don't exist state of indy.

One of the reasons I chose Indy was because I could deal directly with just the school and not have to attend meeting after meeting of drivel with LA bods. Indies have the potential to stream/group peers differently according to need/behaviour etc. Lack of pointless meetings means that I can spend the freed up time to HE on top.

That's my reality. It was Mareeya who pointed out to me recently that our choice of school or HE is false. Most of us have to do school AND HE whether state or special. It's unfair on us and on our dc's who do a full day at school but provision is so woefully inadequate that the best schools really don't have to work too hard to be so IMO.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Too true Star.

[nennypops]

I can't see how you could do a judicial review if you have a right of appeal. And for what it's worth, you would have another right of appeal after the transition review, because the right refers to any review, not just annual reviews.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

That is what I was trying to work out nenny. Where does it say that? I know the right to appeal after an AR is a recent amendment.

Also, is that not any review of the statement as opposed to a discussion about transition? I just can't understand how that would work as what is the mechanism for making them review a statement apart from emergency review or AR.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Its the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010. This relates to s 328 of the Education Act 1996. This talks of reviews in two situations:

(i) AR
(ii) a parent requests an assessment be made and the LA undertake the assessment and review the statement

I don't see how that applies to a review for transition whose purpose will simply be to suggest placements.

I get this wrong and I lose my chance to appeal.

[MareeyaDolores]

Just file your appeal. Grounds: 'everything' .

Yes, I know you had verbally agreed not to specify transition arrangements (yet) but the context of delay was meant to be 'sensibly and collaberatively review situation in a few months after some decent SLT input'. Which is no longer on offer.

By the time your AR tribunal arrives, that transition-discussing-and-planning meeting will be over anyway.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Thanks. I don't think I can leave it to the transition review as that is literally just about what secondary school he will go to and I can't see I would have any right to appeal the statement at that point. So I think you are right Mareeya, I will appeal and open it all up.

Hothead - write to them and ask them to complete the AR by writing to you within x days. If you tell them you will appeal, they will ignore you! How long has it been since the AR meeting?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

I think you get a right to appeal a statement after ANY changes. Ammedment to part 4 would open it for appeal iyswim.

I know I held back on a potential additiona dx for a plan B in the early days as having it added would 'open' the statement for appeal.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

But still think Mareeya's advice is sound. You may as well get on with it now as it sounds as if it is inevitable either way.

[inappropriatelyemployed]

No, I agree Star. Sorry if not making myself clear.

The transition review would not amend the statement as DS's recommended school for Y7 would not be named then so Part 4 would not be opened up.

Neither is the transition meeting to be an assessment and review of the statement so I don't see I have any choice but to appeal now. Or I will have to wait for a year!!