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?