Mumsnet Talk

OMFG I cannot believe this.

We've FINALLY gotten to the point where we and the LA were negotiating over the wording of the proposed for DD2, who they gave a Note in Lieu to in January and we appealed.

The LA officer just got back to me. The school (where DD1 went, and attached to D1's junior school, and our local school, with our peers) were officially consulted.

Apparently the school have concerned as to whether or not they can meet her needs at all.

SHe has already been for an open day. SHe is due to take up her nursery place on 17 Sept - the place she was offered as a sib to DD1, back in April and we accepted.

WHAT THE FUCK?!

Have we just fucked up DD2's education by getting the statement sorted out??

Jesus christ i'm shaking here.

You haven't mucked it up. But they can refuse to take her if they can't meet the needs.

However, I would want a detailed explanation of:

a) What areas they are concerned with
b) What extra measures could be tried
c) Why they think that even with x, y, z they still couldn't meet her needs
d) What alternative the LA proposes
e) How school y (the school alternatively proposed) differs from school x (the school you asked for)

Don't forget, also, that the LA can override the school.

This would be the child that her nursery (sh finished in July) insisted there was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever and that if we hadnt told them she had autism, they'd never have known...

AND the LA EP who insisted the child needed nothing else whatsoever as regards support..

AND the child who the LA gave a Note in Lieu to?! Cos she didnt need a statement??

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK is going on here? Is ths more a case of The board of Governors / Head dont want us / a child with a statement, which i've heard before?

WITH A WEEK TO GO?!?!!

Our LA would apply pressure to the school tbh and really the only hopes of the school managing to block an admission would be because of a need for structural alterations.
Does the statement come with funding? Is it more that the school don't want to have to support a statemented child from their funds rather than any real concerns about their ability to provide the support?

What provisions does the statement specify?

From your second post I'd guess that it's about the funding and I'd say the school don't have a cat in hell's chance of preventing admission as I can't imagine there will be anything extraordinary in her statement tbh.

An specialist SALT and a that she be supervised during lunchtimes/ playtimes.

It hasnt even got hours in it, fgs. She's in nursery, its impossible to specify 20 hours a week or whatever when she's only there for 15.

Happy to email the draft to anyone who wants to see it. Its almost asgeneric as generic gets.

DD1's statement had far more in it.

This is more likely to be personal, tbh. That school dont want us back, i guess?

Can they do that?

If it's for nursery it should still specify hours, dd's nursery statement gave 12.5 hours out of fifteen and her primary one fives 20.

*gives

they might not want you back but they won't be able to stop you BUT I wouldn't want my child in a school that didn't want my child or to work with me. So I'd consider it a lucky escape and look elsewhere tbh.

DD2 has grow up going back and forth to this school, as DD1 went to the infants, and is now in the Juniors.
DD2 has spent four years of her life visiting this school every single day.
DD2 has friends in the nursery, friends she made at the last nursery.
DD2 has already been for the open day and we have already accepted the place in the nursery as a sibling, offered in April, accepted in April.

What else could any other mainsteam offer her? There's one ASD unit, and they dont have a nursery, and there's a SS, which we've been to visit and she is too high functioning to attend... There is nowhere else for her to go, how could anyone argue for her to go anywhere else?

I dont drive, in fact, i was told yesterday not to by my GP (who is also on the board of governors, fuck)... how would i take her elsewhere?

Oh leonie I can't believe this! As you know I am rubbish at this statement lark but am so cross that the school are doing this.

If you want a rant, am here.

um, well, what else did the LA officer say?

they can't just call and say 'oh, not sure if they'll take her'. the LA officer should be dealing directly with the school (which presumably is the named school on the statement) and ironing out the difficulties.

the statement is fairly innocuous, and 'we don't want to' is unlikely to be accepted by the LA.

feck knows why they even bothered to call, tbh. they should have told the school to get back in their box, named it on the statement and been done with it.

what did the LA officer say they are doing to ensure dd starts next week?

yes, whatever the motivation for the school not offering the placement...I wouldn't go near them again with my child....it certainly wouldn't feel positive to me....even if they were 'forced' to give the place...I wouldn't go near at all and would refuse.

I'm sorry you have been blown sideways by this horrible situation suddenly...days to go too...so bad....well, they have a duty to educate so they need to get there fingers out and sort something for you pronto...

Keep strong...even if it is pure adrenaline that gets you through this x

"With regard to * Infant School they have now formally responded following the formal consultation process with them. Unfortunately, they do have some concerns on the content of the Draft Statement and whether they would in actual fact be able to meet DD2's needs. I will therefore need to go through the points of concern and discuss with them and come back to you.

It may be the case that we will need to have a meeting to discuss these issues.

I will obviously get back to you as soon as possible. "

And when i asked what on earth they could be objecting to, she replied:

"I will need to read through the response before I can respond to you, but please be assured that I will get back to you once I have had time to digest the contents of their response.

I am off home now."

school's not named yet. Part 4 is empty.

Oh that's just brilliant isn't it?! Just land that on you and then - 'I am off home now.'

That is just crap.

yea, starfish. here, have a SHIT SANDWICH, i'm going home, bubye

soooooooooooooooooo, she didn't even read it properly, but thought it was appropriate to send you a halk baked alarming email with no actual information, just to put the wind up you, before she went home for a glass of wine and put her feet up.

i despair, i really do.

there's nothing you can do tonight, obv, but get a grip of her tomorrow. try and stay calm - there's really nowt that the school can realsitically object to. my guess would be that they are just after more money tp provide the support, so it's not personal, just business.

but the LA officer should have read their response carefully enough to know that, or should have held off emailing you before she understood wtaf was going on.

email from LA officer sent at 18.23 and 18.40 tonight.

"soooooooooooooooooo, she didn't even read it properly, but thought it was appropriate to send you a halk baked alarming email with no actual information, just to put the wind up you, before she went home for a glass of wine and put her feet up."

This, with bells on.

clearly she felt it was essential that you had a sleepless night before she bothered to read it dealt with appropriately tomorrow.

silly cow.

Oh no leonie, I have just come on and read your post, what a nightmare.

I have no advice for you sorry

Well, i had emailed her earlier in the week and asked or an update cos i hadnt heard from her since the 20something of August.

Guess i deserve it for having the cheek to ask.

yar. how very dare you try to confirm support is in place for your child next week.

<weeps>

The law says that you have an absolute right to mainstream unless it is an inefficient use of resources (which the provision you describe is not) or incompatible with education of other children. If they argue this the LA has a duty to do everything reasonably possible to make it compatible eg put in extra staff, funding, resources to make it compatible for her to go.

The LA can make the school take her.

You should explain to the LA officer that if this school does not accept DD2 that as you do not drive and DD2 would have to go to a different school than DD1 the statement will need to include SN transport for DD2 to go to any other school. The idea the LA will have to pay more for her to go anywhere else is likely to make the LA tell the school to take her.

"I dont drive, in fact, i was told yesterday not to by my GP (who is also on the board of governors, fuck)..."

That, I wouldn't be comfortable with. Sorry.

I sympathise, really I do. I was always sure that the MS school in the next village was the one for DD1. She had her cousin there, she had church friends there. Visiting the school was a mere formality. Then I came to the crashing realisation that regardless of whether they could meet her needs, or would meet her needs, she would cramp their style

What a load of SHITE Leonie - so sorry that you're still having all the grief. It's probably all about money sadly. We're not a million miles from you and when we moved we had to wait half a term before ds could attend due to school querying the 'financial aspects' according to case worker. He then was placed on part time hours for almost a year and we were eventually told he could go back full time 'if funding is agreed' .
Some school's much prefer to have everyone neatly pigeon-holed in one box as it were so they don't have to put themselves out too much. Shameful!

yeah, the GP i saw yesterday, who ask me if i could "just life with it" is on the board of governors at school - what a conflict of interests, eh?

i am just staggered, i never expected this

Leonie, I am so sorry to hear this.

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I am crossing with anyone, but here's my gut reaction, fwiw.

As it currently stands, the statement isn't finalised and no school has been named, so your dd doesn't actually have a statement. Therefore afaik, the school can't refuse to take her, having previously offered her an unconditional place. So, she does have a place, but obviously that's not much use without the support she needs being made available.

I recently spoke to my LA Officer about my concerns re the possibility that the local secondary we want ds to attend refusing to take him because he has a statement. She said, "As it's a local mainstream and your child's catchment then we (the LEA) will bring as much pressure to bear as possible to make sure the school takes him." She said that fundamentally all LEAs want children to go to their local catchment mainstream, as it makes life easier for them. Obviously this can either work for or against us, depending on our individual situations.

I'm not sure how far 'as much pressure' goes though. The question is, does it extend to them making sure the statement is sufficiently funded so as to enable the school to meet your dd's needs. Ie, if they are currently saying she needs say, 4 units, can they up it to 5 or 6, to free up funds for the school to make all the reasonable adjustments possible to make sure they can meet your dd's needs?

Ask for a copy of the school's written response. Chances are this was set up by the LA to get you to accept less or deny her needs.

shit Starlight. That's the cynical view, but perhaps you're right? I had asked them to clarify one point wrt staffing because i didnt want the school to just bung hr with any old dinnerlady or have children taking her to the toilet, as they did with DD1...

And then they come back with this.

I think it's a very real possibility actually.

When the LA contact me next, i will ask for a copy of the school's response. I expect there'll be some reason why not, though.

Wonder if i can ask the school directly for a copy?

Don't be daft. It is a DPA request and tgey'll know it without you spelling it out. Say you will need it for tribunal preparation if you're going and like to be organised.

Senco hat on here. A school can refuse a child if they can show that they cant meet their needs and by having them it would adversly affect other students safety or learning. To do this you get sent tons of paperwork of any child who could possibly be slated to come to your school (whether the parents want it or not). I used to read these thoroughly then write a report for the govenors to sign giving full reasons for yes or no. However, if an lea wants a child to come to a school, in my experience there is nothing much that the school can do - the child will come. What a canny senco might say is 'yes but . . .' hoping that the lea will be so desperate to place the child that they cough up some more money for added support.. A school has to be very careful how many sen children they have and what types of difficulty and the mix.
I would phone the HT and find out whats what. Paperwork never gives a full picture of a child and ive seen paperwork which made a child sound very suitable for mainstream but we knew the family and saw the child and it was an obvious mld special school place. Conversly, i have read paperwork which made the child sound incapable of being in mainstream and he was fine, more than able and is now doing brilliantly. Any school worth their salt will feel better if they meet the child and family. They are right to have concerns and you don't know what is going on at the school - they might just have lost their most experienced TA, the reception teacher might be new or temporary, they might already have other statemented kids coming and dont want an imbalance. Please don't see it as an affront to your child (although i can see why you would) but find out from the school about their concerns. Schools get pissed off with leas as well.

I see it as OH FUCK WE HAVE A WEEK LEFT WHERE'S SHE GONNA GO, - the rest is just details, you know?

Thank you for your senco perspective. The school probably wont be amenable to talking to me, unfortunately (!!!)

They won't actually be able to change anything in parts 2 or 3 now you've won at tribunal even if they try to so don't worry too much about that aspect yet.

Is it more the case that the reason why the statement hasn't been finalised is because of part 4? This happened with us too - the timing was dreadful, and we had to wait weeks for the school to respond before we could fill in part 4, name the school, and finalise the statement. In our case - and I bet in yours too - it is all about money. The school want to be sure that the statement comes with funding - often LAs try it on and try to get school to cough up the cash, as it's not always straightforward about where the funds are coming from (ie school coffers or not).

As agnes says, the school have to prove irrefutably that having dd2 there is either incompatible re infant class size, inefficient use of resources, or impacts on other pupil's education. They can't refuse her alone on basis of can't meet her needs if the LA have set out provision necessary in the statement with accompanying funding. Look at SENCoP again.

It is nerve-wracking but blimey, you've already shown these arseholes you're made of stern stuff (x 1000000!) so don't let this shake you. Doesn't this idiot case worker know who you are fgs?

In the longer term though I don't blame you for feeling sort of unwanted - doesn't bode well does it when the school seem so unwelcoming before she's even started. We've had the same with ds and his cunting school. But let the dust settle on this first - you have plenty of time to look elsewhere at a later stage.

Research a local independent. It is unlikely this school will be able to demonstrate inability to meet needs when other ms's can so have an independent up your sleeve. They'll have to provide transport as it will be your nearest suitable school.

The LA have the responsibility to find her a place. They have fucked things up, not you, so they must sort it out.

Yy do what Star says re ind school. If this ms state school can't meet her needs, there's no ss possible, then independent (mainstream) is all that's left isn't it. Bet the LA will find a speedy resolution then!

oh, i've already mentioned the independent school in an email to the LA tonight... its on the other side of town and costs 3k per term in nursery in fees...

"Is it more the case that the reason why the statement hasn't been finalised is because of part 4? This happened with us too - the timing was dreadful, and we had to wait weeks for the school to respond before we could fill in part 4, name the school, and finalise the statement"

Yes. Number 24 (i asked the LA to clarify about the training) and the LA have to consult the school before they name it and finalise, so here we sit. Cannot believe it after all this time, it still isnt sorted out.

Agnes: i have emailed the LA officer tonight to remind her that SN transport will be required ANYWHERE else except this local walking distance school.

thank you for that tip.

Have and a good cry, going to bed w nasty headache. Thanks so much everyone, will update and/when I learn anything x

Don't fret, probably just LA trying to scare you into not specifying and quantifying. Most probably they did the opposite to school, "this medium-provision vague and generic statement for a badly brought up child with a nasty mum won't be funded, you know". Worry about the GP's confluct of interest when and if you have to appeal to the governors. For all you know, he may be there as part of a pushy-professional-plot to drive out the nasty head and get his own dds' dyslexia sorted...

Conflict, obviously I need to be off to bed as well.

well re confidentiality, i would expect that GP to do her job properly, and be on the board of governors an do that job properly too. I would be wrong, but i do expect her to be a consummate professional at all times. So i am a bit less worried about it than perhaps i ought to be. Plus, that GP should KNOW my DD2 child belongs at the school, she's also watched the child grow up fgs as she fetches her own children from the same school...

i never once thought that getting all this done for DD2 would in any way prevent her from attending this school.

I certainly never thought it would be used/held against us/DD2...

I will look into one more SS in the area today - we're going to the Donkey Sanctuary this morning at Sutton Park and both special schools bring kids there on a friday morning so i will feel them out, but certainly the impression i've always had is that those children are way more severe than DD2. WAY more severe.

And i will wait for the LA bod to reply. SIGH.

OMG, just read this. so outrageous. you could not make this up, could you? really sorry. but agree with the others. if school doesn't want DD2, then I wouldn't want her to go there.
hope you get some 'answers' today.

la officer replied this morn to my email saying that as soon as she can "formulate the school's response" she'll be back in touch...

Wtf does that mean??!

doesn't sound as if she intents to simply forward the school's response...

It means she's going to tell you what she wants to tell you, while using some parts of the school's response, sanitising what she doesn't want you to know.

It means it's all bollocks. Leonie stay on the path you were on and don't get sidetracked by heresay.

she cant sanitise anythng... Thats insanity...

Got a friend whose husband is on the board of governors, have asked wtf. Also plan to grab head of juniors today and ask wtf.

Havent heard fuck all from la officer today.

Still nowt. She does her emailing at home time though...

Leonie, put it out of your mind. Carry on as you intended. You're allowing them to hold power over you.

Call the school if you like and say you are just asking for clarification that they have rejected your dd so that you can look at your options.

Any news Leonie?

Not a fucking word
Have a nice weekend, Leonie.
Sure thing, la officer. Ta for the shit sandwich.

Starlight, essentially I did. I collared head of juniors and Asked wtf all this was about.

He said that the board of govs haven't even seen the latest revision of the stmt with the 'new #24' - which I haven't even seen but the head of infs has shown the head of junrs...

I do not know what is going on but it doesn't Take 24 hours to 'formulate' anything ffs...

Meanwhile we've made an appt for weds to see the very last other option in the area, a MLD as co-sited with a mainstream primary.

Please phone the Cheif Excex of the LEA Monday am and complain! Or do as I do and go down to the council offices and refuse to leave until you have spoken to this woman who has made you wait all wekkend manager for answers on Monday!

I thought the school has to take a statemented child (if named in Part 4) as all help is in form of statemented funding?

The only way I thought they could say 'no' was when the class is to full capacity?

Total pants.....do nice things with dd to distract you over weekend if you can...I went away last weekend as it got so bad!

Tossers

I really do wonder though if the school really have categorically refused to have her - more that they've raised some issues (re funding) which need to be clarified? The LA case officer possibly muddying the waters and bleating to you unecessarily, perhaps?

The fact is, though, is that they (LA) have a duty to find a place for her, with or without a statement (which she obv has even if not formally finalised). And with a statement any school has to raise seriously solid objections not to take her.

But try not to worry too much over the weekend (I know, I know - ha ha). The LA officer is obviously a cretin of the highest order ("formulate their response" wtf??) so maybe don't take her word for anything.

Have a large tonight.

'formulate a response' is council speak for' what load of bollocks can we come up with to fob you off'. Cocks

I think i'all take up drinking.

I'll join ya

While they're busy formulating, time is running out! Why all the cloak and dagger on telling me what the problem is??

Time = Money (saving)
It's their biggest tactic!

Sigh. A little girl's heart s going to be broken, which is the biggest casualty in all this...

She's been in for a play, had her picture taken, seen where her peg is, met her teacher, etc. How am I going to tell her she can't go there?!?

Don't not yet! Wait until you know for sure!
They do this and keep parents waiting all weekend ...it is standard! It's awful!

Hold on in there!!! Distract yourselves for weekend ...can you go away for 1 night just get away! ((((Leonie))))

Leonie, seriously, this is NOT something to lose sleep over. Savvy schools do give LAs a hard time because it gets them additional resources. It is between THEM. Leave the to it and carry on business as usual.

Leonie, don't lose heart. We had a smaller version of this because of my amendments to ds's proposed statement. School told me no MS school would take him if I persisted with the amendments I wanted.

Then LEA called and said the school would refuse to take him if I took them to tribunal and won (although of course they said I wouldn't win). This is the school that he has been at since nursery and where he only has one year left.

Both the school and the LEA said specifying and quantifying to the extent I wanted to made it impossible for a MS school to meet the provision set out in the statement and on that basis, they then refused to make the amendments.

I asked if the school could really refuse to have him, given that he already has a place at the school and the LEA said that in reality they wouldn't let that happen, as that school is where they wanted him to be (local catchment MS).

Even after they told me they flatly refused to make any more amendments to the statement I was able to find some middle ground and we reworded the problem area to suit both parties. It's not perfect - not by a long chalk - but it's workable and ds will get the provision he needs without the school refusing to take him.

By thas point I had pretty much lost the will to live and couldn't face more fighting, but overall we are happy with the contents and wording of the statement. Ds got to stay at the school and he's back there now, with the statement in place. Of course the school have done sweet fa about implementing it - but then, that's a whole 'nother battle.

The first phonecall with the LEA sounded for all the world like there was no hope of negotiation, every word I spoke was met with the statement 'we are not going to make any more amendments to the provision - no matter what' - but we still managed to get through to them the next time we spoke, by offering to concede over something that wasn't so important and that drew them out enough for us to find out what the school's problem was.

Thank you all.

I do feel like I've fucked up though. Its hard not to.

I imagine that's what they all want...

Leonie - as things currently stand your child does have a place offered/accepted at the school and no statement in place as it is only proposed. They can not withdraw your offer of a place there at this stage. Maybe you can work on the theory she will start there as planned and the school will just have to work to put provision in place pending the statement detailing the provision. I don't know for sure but I would suggest once she has started it will be harder from them to disagree to be named in the statement and move her on. If however they are really being awkward in the mean time then you still have the option to name another school and can consider a move that way. Maybe you actually have a good option here to test the water so to speak? There are a couple of people who post in education (primary) on MN here who are very up on the ins and outs of admissions rules so may be worth posting there if you need any advice if you think the original place has actually been withdrawn etc.

We've had nothing whatsoever to concern us regarding the unstatemented nursery place we were offered in April and accepted in April! Nothing written, no calls, NOTHING.

Unless told otherwise, i can only assume she's going to start on the 17th as planned... They ALL (infs, jnrs, the LA, etc) know how to get ahold of me ffs...

i have written a longwinded email reminding the LA officer that the child had a place in that nursery already before the statement had even been agreed to be done, and that under the sibs rule, she would have a place in the school in Sept 2013 for reception...

they'll take her as a sib but not as a statemented child? what the actual fuck?

i havent sent it yet, i want he parent partnership guy to take a look first.

i was so shocked yesterday that the LA officer admits to "formulating" the school's response (unless she means she is formulating HER response to the school??) that i didnt reply to it...

PP guy approves of email, but proposes i send it AFTER i have found out what the school have to say for themselves. I agree.

while i wait for ipsea to ring tonight, i talked t someone on a support group on fb.

they said the school can appeal the placement if they dont agree.

is this true? if so, our school will appeal to get rid of us if the LA have to force it

ipsea said to remind the LA that they are outside their 8 weeks as of Monday. (13th July til 8 Sept). Tell them to shit or get off the pot.
remind them that we will appeal if they dont name the school we want.
if they're not going to name the school, tell them to finalise so we can appeal.
as for not knowing why the school is objecting, breakdown the three lawful reasons a school can object, demonstrate why they are not true, and then remind the LA that any other reasons are spurious and unlawful.
I do not automatically have a right to see the reasons because it is a LA internal document, but remind them that it will be on file in the event of an appeal.
And in lieu of receiving anything from the school or LA saying the nursery offer has been withdrawn, assume it hasn't, and take the child to school.

oh, the plot thickens.

I spoke to one of the school governors tonight and he said that no decisions have been made while he was at any of the meetings, he knows nothing of the decision, and that the whole thing sounds fishy to him.

Maybe the LA officer made it up? To annoy me? To stir shit up? To upset me? To cause maximum stress?

But she cc'ed her boss on the email, why would she lie?

leonie - regarding the 8 weeks: august does not count (just spoke to ipsea myself last week as in similar situation re waiting for final statement)...

no, Ipsea lady called me back about 15 minutes after that post to clarify re the 8 weeks. Meh.

Leonie, no advice but hope this gets sorted out soon for your DD and you.

So the fuckwads have til 15 Oct. Capital sigh.

I have sent my email, and Cc'ed everyone involved inc the head of SENAS.

Wen to a birthday party this afternoon. Envied the other parents whose kids werent crying every 5 seconds because they were overwhelmed by the number of kids, the music, not wanting t share toys, etc etc..

Watched DD2 twirling and playing by herself, ignoring the others, only hugged the birthday boy when i asked her to so we could leave, even though she adores him, etc etc...

Then i remembered all this palaver and i started feeling sorry for myself again. SHe'll make new friends at a new school, but it is a crime that she might have to

Fgs Leonie. There are plenty of reasons for you (us all) to be all doom and gloom, but this isn't one of them.

It's all crazy heresay and most likely bollock. Don't start planning your plan B. It woukd be a waste of energy at this point.

speaking of plan Bs, i'm seriously considering a maladministration complaint when this is all settled.

"I'm off home now." was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Suggestions?

you'll have to pardon me, starlight, i'm feeling very upset today. its that time of the month and i dont feel especially well in the first place, but i feel some considerable blame here, i feel like i've caused this. Maybe they hate ME and dont want us as parents back, and they're shafting our child as a result.

maybe i've been suckered in by a lie courtesy of the LA, and didn't see it til it was too late? she cc'd her boss on the emails, i find it hard to believe it was a lie, but why drop it on me and then scarper and refuse to answer the question?

Why does the head of jnrs and the parent governor i spoke to know nothing about any "issues" ? Yeah okay, i'll probably get my answer off the head of jnrs tomorrow, but when i asked him what he knew, he said he knew nothing.

the whole thing feels like a massive conspiracy.

Nah. Just shite communication, as always.

Give it another week for everyone to get their 'school' heads on, and things will be a lot clearer.

Sounds like bog standard crap comms, not a conspiracy. LA woman is a prize candidate for award for premature disclosure of shite amounting to nowt, and causing panic, though. Loon.

LA woman is the sort who isnt just incompetent, but deliberate about it... calculating.

This is the woman who told me on the phone (which is why i only communicate in writing now) that she dint have to take the indep SALT's report into account when making a decision for statement or NiL, she only had to read it.

which i knew to be a lie, which is why they gave in with 3 days to go on the appeal, because i knew that was wrong and against COP.

Try not to worry too much. I've had similar, sm was in place but LA said that the named school hadn't agreed to accept ds and that 'discussions' were ongoing. Of course this really stressed me out as I thought they would refuse to take ds. It turned out that school had told the LA that to provide the statement provision they would need more hours than was actually specified. After going to 'panel' the hours were increased so the school agreed to have him.Unfortunately we then had to relocate and never got there anyway .

I've got a caseworker like that Leonie - think it's all part of their training. They have a handbook - 'How to annoy and worry parents who request too much'

"Of course this really stressed me out as I thought they would refuse to take ds"

this is exactly what i am afraid of, especially seeing as how the LA are keeping mum on WHY.

Yeah - with gems like

"I'm off home now. Enjoy your shit sandwich, Leonie."

[facepalm]

Leonie the reality is that they can only refuse if no mainstream school would be suitable however many resources were put in. Which means she would have to advise your DD go to SS. There is no way this Officer, who did not even want to give you a statement, wants to place your DD in special school with a taxi.

She is probably doing it so you will back down on the wording or to water down the provision in the hope you will be so grateful she has talked the school round you don't rock the boat again.

This is it, SHE specified most things, I only had to ask her about the wording of number 24, which is the line about the training the people dealing with DD2 will have. She left 24 wooly and vague, i asked it to be tightened up cos DD1's is very explicit and she's in the SAME SCHOOL.

I think she must've said something negative to the school about us, and now regrets it cos they don't want DD2 and she'll HAVE to force it.

I have told her SS and a taxi is highly inappropriate for DD2, that is not a situation she needs to be in at 4, and her peer group is the kids she's grown up with at DD1's school!

We'll see if i get a response to my email. And more importantly, if i get some info at the gates this morning!

[stomach is churning with worry this morning]

Nope no answers yet. Head says he will talk to Infs head today and let me know later.

SOSSEN say the school must be named. And as the alternatives are unsuitable, it will be. She says to go back to the school and find out what he problem is. And i will do that if the head doesnt tell me this afternoon, i'll march right up to Infs and ask to find out what's going on.

I met a mom at school this morning whose daughter goes to the MLD/SLD school now, after the LEA did her statement, and named our mainstream anyway, in spite of evidence that it would be unsuitable!

sigh, nothing, not a single word from anyone.

I cant believe they have left you hanging like this Leonie

I have no advice but just feel really sorry for you and your family

No one deserves to be treated like this.

right. school have taken her statement apart line by line and ARE SUGGESTING WORDING.

What the actual fuck?

How did you find that out?

i suggest you write a quick email to the LA (including her boss) querying why the school are doing the LA's job.

tis all a game, i imagine to get more money.

if they are going to all the trouble of changing the wording, they are going to accept her, leonie.

they won't change the wording and then say they can't meet needs.

i would ask the LA where this fits into their statementing policy, as well. did they give you a timeline, or a 'who does what, and when', cos i'm damned sure that 'school gets a rewrite' doesn't appear anywhere.

timewasting crap, but they are going to take her.

LA woman just sen me their issues and their friendly helpful suggestions.

Happyto email it to anyone who can tell me what to tell them.

I just emailed the La bod back and asked her to clarify if the school are actually refusing to take her unless the changes are made

hopefully i caught her before she goes home for the night!!!!

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY

The school want the wording toned down, they want the access to the specialist SALT at their discretion, they want the line about mealtimes removed because she's only in nursery (HELLO, YR IS NEXT, DUH) and they want the home-school diary removed, etc etc.

its like they want the child to be normal, they've scaled everything down. WHY? that will get them even less money!

AFAIK the school cannot, independently, change a statement, I can't see how they would have the authority (or professional expertise, obviously!).

The school, or LA, categorically cannot change a statement so it presents as what they can provide, but on what the child needs.

Ring IPSEA first thing tomorrow. You need to challenge this, but need to be able to quote the relevant bit of Education Act/SENCOP. Maybe someone else knows the legal aspect of this one? (Agnes or Wet probably will!)

I could put you in touch with an advocate if you like, who might be happy to advise. His expertise is mainly ABA but he knows the Ed Act/SENCOP inside out and has represented many families at tribunal. PM me if you want more.

Of course they want provision scaled down, less work for them!

they want the access to the specialist SALT at their discretion

They CANNOT make this change. The contents of a statement is based on what the child needs, as deemed by the professionals consulted during the Statiutory Assessment (they'll be listed in Part 1 of the statement).

Am [shocked] the LA haven't told them to butt out tbh.

the SLT thing could be an improvement though - what did that bit say before they changed it, leonie?

Why do people always water things down and never raise things up? Aarggh.
So they don't want to do the work and don't want you harrassing them for not fulfilling the letter of the statement. Your reputation obviously precedes you.

I would sit tight for a few days and see what comes back.

LA may tell school to get stuffed on basis if they water it down - and LA agree - this will look terrible at tribunal given the LA originally agreed it.

They may issue a second proposed if there are lots of changes.

or they may issue a final. If its final and takes out your wording your DD can still start at the nursery / school - afterall thats what the statement will require - but you can still appeal about the wording of the statement - although you have 2 months so may want to wait until she is well established there and appeal at the end of the 2 months .

Or you could wear it for this year and then appeal if the wording is not put in at annual review - it may even be that there will be a transition review in Feb if they treat nursery to reception as a transition.

It doesn't like the school is saying they won't take her

annual review will be in 6 mos time, that's birmingham standard

SALT was saying she'd have 20 minutes per day and a specialist SALT, etc.

School want it removed an a line put in to say that IF they determine she needs SALT they'll re-refer her.

ach, no. if slt reports says slt necessary, school don't have a leg to stand on.
time wasting.

if it was access on demand in addition to the timetable slt, then fairy nuff.

school are loons.

i would very nicely write a letter to the chair of govs asking why the ht is undermining the specialist reports and the LA. the LA woman wants to do her job and tell the school to wind their neck in and do as they are told. weak.

the HT thinks she's something she's not. Really. In so much as educated to a degree that she isnt, qualified to a degree she isnt, and obviously, capable of writing provision that she knows fuck all about.

I've got a governor's ear. I will be having a word.

God leonie, HT sounds bonkers like Dd3's old one.

WTF makes her think she knows more about your Dd2's needs than the specialist??

It's the LA you need to get on to really though, not the governers.

There are two issues: school place, and provision contained in statement. As far as I can see, you have no worries about the school place. Honestly if I was you I would concentrate right now on wording in statement. Once you have that right, you have something concrete and enforcable. Relying on the goodwill of a school is hit and miss, whereas a statement should be solid even if a school tries to wriggle out of implementing it

Also need to bear in mind that if you get the statement right, but it turns out you need to move school (ie because the school still turn out to be unwilling to work with you), you at least have the provision contained in the statement.

It's a really hard one. I've spend the last 18 months going backwards and forwards trying to work out which is most important - helpful school or right statement. I think long-term a helpful school is better, as they'll provide the right support regardless of statement. But in your position right now, in the immediate present, I'd concentrate on the statement, as I fear you might moving school in due course anyway.

Ok, responded.

I've told them the school doesnt get a rewrite, that's not in the COP.
We need a final statement asap.
If you finalise it and its all watered down for the school, we'll appeal.
If you dont name the school, we'll appeal.

And i've let the governor know what's happening. I hope to speak to him soon.

I am staggered. They are total fuckwads. The HT is evil, but she's only there 60% of the time now, with a view to weeding her out. Good riddance, I say.

x-posted. But good for you, yay!

i am so tired of the bullshit. i really am.

i wonder why the school hate statements so much?

I spent many months this time last year wondering exactly the same thing! Then, a year into school, realised it's because they are forced to provide extra support, time, energy and resources. The cynical part of me believes that schools on the whole want average children, who are clever and interesting up to a point, but who don't require much extra work either way, who cruise along through the years not causing any trouble.

And they certainly don't want pita parents like us

they did a similar thing to us over DD1's statement. BUut it was finalised two weeks into Y3, and Juniors is a completely different school.

And the head of Juniors is taking over Infants, they have recent federated and they're weaning down from two heads to one. (and its the good one who is staying).

The bad HT is already not there 40% of the week...

Yes Bialy - sad but true in a lot of cases. School staff used to be very friendly to us but since I have put my foot down, complained and refused to agree to certain things they have gone very cold

A school can only suggest changes at the annual review. I think the lea will tell them to shove themselves. Crikey I'd be overjoyed to have a regular Salt come in the only problem being is that i might just lock them in a cupbard so i could keep them! There might be a potential problem in that the leas sometimes dont provide the right amount of money to cover what is on the statement and expect the school to cough up to meet the shortfall. Yes i know the money should bedesignated for that child, but have had the experience of that not being the case.

I am sure your child will start her place and hopefully the ht will go for retirement sharpish.

Oh my word leonie! What a mess.

Surely the LEA should have told them to not be so ridiculous, the statement is the results of expert reports and assessments on your child, they don't know better than the professionals! Bloody hard to get a decent statement why do they think they can get you to water it down after months of fighting to get the statement!

So cross for you. What a farce x

the question is, WHY have the LEA bothered ME with this shit if they're just going to tell the school to fuck themselves anyway??

i feel some particularly strong complaints coming on...

Because that LA officer is a total flipping cretin who doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.

I was on the phone w my mom, I totally knew the wench would email me, and she did at 18.15 - all of her emails are short shocks so she can fling it and nip off home without having to reply.

nasty woman.

the school are also opposed to this one:

"20. Additional adult support to assist DD2 with her learning/play development, sensory needs and her personal care."

They say they cannot meet that one. Why not? Money? Staffing?

NOT MY PROBLEM.

Sometimes schools that are even on your side tell the LA they cannot meet needs in an attempt to convince the LA to delegate more funding that or the following year.

Leonie, as I've said before, tis all bollocks and nowt to do with you. Just carry on as you were before.

You're right, if the school don't have resources to meet needs according to statement, not your problem.

Just email her back so she has it first thing in the morning:

Dear LA officer

As you will of course know, the school do not have authority to make changes to the content of Part 3 of a Statement of SEN. This section contains the specified and quanitified provision based on the description of the child's needs in Part 2, and the instructions of the relevant professionals consulted during Statutory Assessment. As you will therefore know, it is not appropriate for the school to be suggesting changes to the Statement based on their ability to meet these needs.

Please advise me asap whether the local authority is making amendments to the Proposed Statement or whether you will be issuing a Final Statement.

Please also advise me asap if x School have formally confirmed that they are withdrawing the offer of a place so I am able to take the relevant action.

Leonie

Worth chucking in relevant bits from Ed Act and SENCOP too.

head, meet desk

thank you ALL for the quick responses tonight, the fast thinking advice and helping me make sense of the insensible.

ah bugger, wish i hadnt left that part out, about withdrawing the offer of a place...

ah well, tis done now.

my head hurts this morning. i'm not sure whether to say anything to head of Jnrs this morning about the totally illegal-ness of the school proposing to re-write her statement to suit them...

Infants want me to 'pop down' , says the head of juniors....

Of course I didn't, not alone anyway, but should I want until that LA come back to me?

What if infants want to tell Mr they're withdrawing her place?

Infants just wanted me to pop down if I had any queries regarding their protestations. I don't.

Dd2 is confirmed to start next Monday at 1pm. The rest is bureaucracy and bullshit that doesn't involve me.

My only question is why I was dragged into it?

To be fair to schools - my friend is a SENCO as well as Mum to a child with ASD - she says what the LA give them in terms of money really does not come close to what it costs the school to provide. Thats not your problem and if anything more reason to get the statement water tight - but it does explain why some schools hate statements - especially if they end up with more children on statements than has been funded in the way the LA did the budget allocation.

For eg our LA has reduced year on year the hourly rate they give schools for TAs so the school have to top that up, and top up the hours (pay for first 20) etc etc.

But agree the SEN officer should have left you out of it. The stupid woman should just issue the final which is water tight and tell the school to get on with it.

Parent governor is going to look into it for us. This IMHO came from school, not from the 'board of governors' and the parent gov is concerned she's speaking for them when she has no right to.

Oooh err..be careful. A Parent Governor should not be 'looking into' anything for you. It's not their place. If you have concerns with the school, they should be directing you to the school's complaints procedure. S/he also shouldn't be divulging her concern regarding the practice of the HT, even if she then goes on to raise it with his/her Chair of Governors.

I'm not saying that to be fussy, or prissy, but just because if you have to go via maladministration, etc., it won't help your case if there have been unofficial meddlings in the process.

I had something similar with DS once his statement was proposed.

School, who had been denying any problem for years, suddenly said his problems were too great to deal with.

The LA were having none of it. But I have to say I wished I had moved then as I spent the next 6 months trying to work with school to achieve the support DS needed (and he funding they needed) to no avail. Ultimately, they could not be bothered with the hassle for one child.

Part 4 is left open for you to request the school. A head can comment on behakf of her Governing Body and most do.

A school can only refuse to take a child, under Schedule 27 (3) of the Education Act 1996:
(a) the school is unsuitable to the child's age, ability or aptitude or to
his special educational needs, or
(b) the attendance of the child at the school would be incompatible
with the provision of efficient education for the children with
whom he would be educated or the efficient use of resources

There is some IPSEA guidance here

Well I think k said parent gov is looking into which govs are involved in these things and then I think aid parent gov might then raise the issue that said head is speaking on their behalf without them actually being consulted... what he chooses to do is his choice tbh.

The governors wouldn't get involved in anything to do with statementing, tbh, so that's a bit of a red herring.

The only role for the governors in this situation is as part of the complaints policy, (particularly against the ht) which is why I suggested their involvement earlier if you felt the ht was being deliberately obstructive and involved in stuff she wasn't supposed to be.

The governing body won't even know the names of statemented kids or what's in the statements unless there is a specific complaint (and then only two or three of the governors will know as part of the investigation, to keep the others 'clean' in case they are required to do anything else without previous knowledge).

Now that you know it is sorted, I would say thanks v much to gov friend, and then explain that there is no need for their involvement, as it is sorted.

To encourage the gov body to get involved now that it is a done deal will muddy the waters, and could potentially compromise any further issues you may or may not have in implementation of the statement.

Well done, though.

Roll on Monday, and bah to the silly LA woman who caused a completely unnecessary fuss about nothing.

(the govs aren't in any way responsibly for operational provision within the school, that is the ht remit)

ell, it isnt sorted cos there's no statement in my hand, yet.

Am really glad that your Dd's place is secure leonie and fingers crossed you get the finalised statement this week.

to get that statement before the end of the (as i asked the woman to do) would be an awesome topping on the shit sandwich, wouldnt it?

I understand how frustrating it all is, and I wasn't trying to give you more stress. But a Governor should never 'investigate' for a parent. They should always refer the parent to the head, or the complaints procedure.

What they then do aside from the parent is of course, up to them. But Governors are not schools inspectors and the whole Governance relationship can be jeopardised if it is perceived that Governors are 'spying' on schools.

Of course Lougle.

La officer has come back to me.

She wants a mtg with the school and us.

DD2 is to start there in the nursery on monday, though.

Aargh. Wrong thread...

Sorry Leonie! Meant to say, who can you bring with you to the meeting? It may well be that this is the LEA's clumsy attempt to set up a triangular conflict between you, them and the school. Might they want to take advantage of any previous difficulties regarding dd1, or remind you of other difficult encounters? This is a guess, but i think it might be a correct one.

Quickest way out of mind games is not to play. And easiest way to do that is change as much of the encounter as possible yourself. People, setting, your mindset, what you wear. Bringing Starbucks for everyone to thank them for attending despite busy schedules is a very subtle way to take charge .

oh, sounds like a good plan.

The PP guy is coming - i told him and the LA to book it round HIS schedule, not ours - as we will arrange summat whatever we've given.

This is EXACTLY what they want to do, create a triangular conflict between all of us.

Myself, my husband, the PP guy, the LA are coming afaik. I dont know how else to change it.

I was thinking of asking the head of Jnrs to be present too.?

Write to the LA and tell them you don't think it is appropriate for you to be there WHEN they explain to the school that they have no say in how the statement is worded or how much SALT your dd gets. Tell them that you have no business telling the school how to do their job, nor shoukd you be expected to and it might jeapordise your future relationship with the school if they mistake the law for parental views.

That's essentially what i said last evening. I am extremely hesitant to give infants a platform to take this apart before it has even begun!!!

LA officer pissed off and is "out of office" until Tuesday. within 5 minutes of sending said email to me last night.

I've left a message for the head of SENAS to phone me today.

I am so unhappy I just do not know what to do.

Leonie, you sound defeated, and it's completely unnecessary. Stay out of it. Stay away from it, tell the LA to just pull their finger out and get you the document. Whether they listen to school or not is up to them. Whether you subsequently appeal or not, is up to you. That shoukd be the first time you get back involved. The rest is just nonsense you shoukd ignore.

Fwiw, having a written record of LA and school going around seemingly in circles and confused will help any tribunal case hugely.

I dont understand why they are involving me except to upset me / get me to agree to less.

Which of course i will not do.

They seem to have until 20 October to issue a final statement first proposed 13 July, 2nd proposed 31 July), because of the 6 weeks hols. Th consulted school on 24 Aug.

I FEEL defeated, Star. The whole effing point f starting all this 1 1/2 years ago was to get this sorted before she started and the HT got her fingers in my pie. Not only does she have all the pies, she's pigging out on them

Well your FEELING are getting in the way of your ability to deal with this. Your anxiety is causing you to phone people, catch people, email people and involve yet more people. I was the same once.

The best strategy is to let them tie themselves up without them being able to say any of the tangle was down to you.

You're somehow desperately trying to find a way for this all to be in place by monday. What possible interest does the LA or school have in this being so? Forget it and get over it. Focus on the deadline date and find a way to be okay with it. Being upset about it won't change the outcome but will prevent you from dealing effectively with the ultimate goal.

Leonine, they haven't said she can't start, though, have they?

Think of it as a transition meeting. Have you had a proper transition meeting between all the profs and the new setting?

no they havemt said she cant start, they've just said she'll start without any support in place at all.

and then they'll use that as 'evidence' that she doesnt need any support

Yes.

Okey doke.

I've always sent dd2 anyway. It's pretty clear cut that she needs support, so it tends to make people react faster to get it in place (at least as a tiny). But i can see that more subtle stuff might be problematic.

i think i sorted it. Igot the la officer's boss on the phone, she clarified that actually we dont need to be there and no, no provision wiuld be removed, its to beat the school into submission really. The la ffucer asked her boss to come anyway, so i was able to tell her what to expect and the kind of spurious reasons they'd objected, so shr promised me a date asap to expect final and she'll send us a final once she's srted school out. She ensured they wouldnt be removing provision and they know we'll appeal...

Hope thats the end of it.