Oh to hell with secrecy. I'm past caring if my LA are reading this.
You see, what happened was....
The Proposed Statement was issued on its statutory date. This was before a key assessment had been done. They knew that the assessment needing doing right at the start of SA - there's plenty of filenotes where the LA are trying to arrange this assessment right at the very start of SA. But for whatever reason, DS didn't get assessed until nearly a month after Proposed. Having read Annex 1 - I now know that they should have, in fact, delayed the Proposed Statement until the assessment/report had been done.
However, not delaying the Proposed meant that this key report didn't arrive until 6 working days before the date the Final was due. This report, the LA say, made them change their mind about which school DS should go to. They were originally going to name School 1 but this report made them name School 2. Which is a load of bollocks because School 1 had already refused to admit my DS just after the Proposed was issued - so if the LA had been doing their jobs properly, they should have been actively seeking another school shortly after Proposed was served, knowing full-well that School 1 had refused DS because of the severity of his dyslexia.
Because this key report came in late, which, the LA say then made them change their minds to School 2, the ONLY report served on School 2 was this late report which was served by the LA in a telephone conversation with the school. This conversation took place ON the actual date of my DS's Final statement. The LA verbally "read out key parts" of this report to School 2 (seriously, this is what the LA say happened - they "read out" parts of a report ON the date of the Final Statement!!!) School 2 said that they could support everything in this key report, However, the LA made no refernce to all the other 9 reports which weren't "read out" to the school, no suprise there, then which included full details about his dyslexia. Additionally, all the 9 other reports - which totally specificies in great detail ALL my son's needs - did not go to School 2 at any time until just before Tribunal.
There is no evidence of this verbal consultation. No filenote, no note, no nothing. But 4 days after the date of the Final Statement, there is an email chain between the LA and School 2 where School 2 has been sent just the Statement and this key report and said "yes we will accept him" based on this one report. They are a SALT unit, and yes it was a SALT report - so of course they're going to say yes. The LA say this email contained the whole statement - which is total and utter lie - not least because if it did contain all the reports, then it took School 2 exactly 8 minutes to read and digest over 300 pages of reports AND write a reply back to the LA AND sign their email "All my love". Also the LA did not declare this email exchange in their DPA material, it came from School 2's files.
All the SEN laws and CoP states that ALL the written reports have to be served on the school BEFORE Finalising the Statement. But no, the LGO say that the "reading out" of just one-tenth of all the reports is acceptable!!!!!! And they say that they believe this verbal "consultation" took place - despite there being no evidence. The LGO are totally letting the LA get away it.
There's much much more, but I've already written an essay on this message
I'm beyond angry about this. And I've probably outed myself. But it'll all be publically available soon on the LGO's website. And my website - where mine will have the truth and the LGOs won't.