email I meant message!

mum2fred Thanks for your email, but please don't get angry on my behalf, you'll need all your energy for your own battles.

This information actually isn't as bad as it sounds for us because it is the beginnings of a case for alternative intervention. It's bad news for the tax payer obviously, but then so is a lot of stuff that goes unchallenged.

I'm not shocked because I expected it, but I also expected it to be covered up more cleverly. It is a relief that their shortcomings are so obvious, and that therefore 'probably' haven't been challenged before otherwise their answers would have been better.

It could also mean that they haven't built strategies for denying ABA, because imo the best strategy would be to provide robust evidence to show that what they provide is effective, meets the needs of their children and is cost-effective.

Not saying it isn't going to be a long hard slog for us though.

that is a disgrace. an absolute disgrace.
were they even embarrassed when they told you that?

seriously. they need to get their priorities in order. spending your tax money on organising a 'feedback plan' as means of evidence?!?! wtf??

What a waste of your taxes. I'd be right pssed off if i was you. I AM right pssed off. That money, those wages that are going towards a project manager spending 6 months setting up a link on a website or a phone line or whatever it is... should be spent on your son!!

disgrace.

Yes moondog I'm going to write to the Head of Service stating what I believe I have been told today and ask her if she would like to clarify that I had understood correctly, or add anything.

Wondering about the IEP too. I'm sure I read somewhere that it should be reviewed more often than that.

There was some justification in only offering 1 hour (it's gone down ) a week. Apparently other Authorities offer more but only for a short period of time and then cease the service completely, whereas our service continues supporting ds all the way through school, even if just in the background.

Doesn't sound even vaguely plausable to me. Surely a child needs support for as long as they need support and if other authorities end the provision it is because they have been successful at the early intervention and the children no longer need it.

Not good enough and they know it.
You need written statements of what they say-ask for everything in writing.

Oh, and his progress will be measured via a termly IEP!

The Local Authority evidence for using their form of intervention is:

1) Word of mouth recommendations for their service by parents.

2) Piles of paper that say that it is effective but that haven't yet been collated into one place or document

3) Such a good service provision that they are launching their own feedback plan to get written comments from parents.

They sat in my living room and told me this!

Phew, - I guess I have nothing to worry about then !!!

lol. i KNEW i should have tried crystal healing...

Present it in a confident erudite manner
'You will of course be aware of Smith & Jones 2001 research which .........'.

They will be too scared to admit they don't so just sweep along with the discussion ,taking charge.

I don't have issue with parents presenting research to back up their wishes to an Educational or Health Authority though. If not, then they could find themselves in the position of funding reiki or crystal healing because a parent wanted it.

If you put together a coherent, civil and evidence based case, then chances are you will get what you want.