Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
Hi, I received the proposed statement for my ds yesterday.
I won't go in depth but in part 3 every objective says ds 'should' or staff 'should. There are 12 'points' which do cover the basics of what he will need but it is very broad and there are no specifics at all.....
To be honest it doesn't really say that much, there is no mention of how much salt he will require, by whom etc. It all looks a little wishy washy and standardised really.
I am really disappointed, the lea here have been really good up until now, I haven't had to fight for anything up to now.
I know I am going to have to have a meeting with them to re-work part 3.
Does anyone know where I could perhaps view a well written statement so I can see properly how it should look?
I know treehouse has templates for autism statement but as I do not know your son SN I dont know if it will help link below just in case it is of some help.
You did not say if the statement was mainstream or specialist. Special school statement are less vague as speech therapy, ot is sometimes available on site (it is for my sons special school) so my statement does not have much quanitity on but i still do not have any should on it.
Ours was/is the same. We sent in revisions. They finalised it that way, full of holes and wishy washy and lacking anything concrete.
we've appealed. tribunal on 30 Sept. [sigh]
Thanks for the replies, sorry I didn't put in enough info, dd2 had me up at silly o'clock!!!
Ds is diagnosed with ASD, he's 4 and starts school in sept. I asked for a local ss and have been told that he has a place there although it is not listed on the proposed statement.
If they are allowed to be less specific in the statement if a child is going to attend a ss then how, if you feel provision is not being met can you argue the fact legally??
Will have a look at the links, thanks
I'd also have a close look at Part 2 as well because that is probably not good either. SALT needs to be in Part 2 as well as Part 3. Part 4 naming the school is blank at this stage (that is normal).
I would reject their proposed statement on the basis that the support is neither specified nor quantified properly. At the very least further adjustment is needed.
I've just had a quick scan of the links, the proposed statement I have bears little resemblance.... will have to phone ippsea and pp tomorrow and will be getting the highlighter pen out to go through the whole document...
Part 3 is only 2 A4 sides, and every point days ds should.....there is very little detail in it at all. What a pain in the arse!!!!
Part 2 will also need the highlighter pen going through it particularly if there is no SALT contained within that section.
IPSEA are very difficult to get hold of (you may be lucky and be able to speak to them just after they open) so would also suggest you try SOSSEN or ACE as well.
its typical tbh. They did it to us, definitely. Ours has very little substance in part 3.
When we revised pt 2 and 3 and sent it back to them, they accepted the changes we made to pt 2, which is now 6 pages long!!! but they rejected everything we put in pt 3 and finalised it that way.
So now we have a statement with no junior school named (she's going to be in Y3 in September!!), 6 pages of difficulties outlined in excruciating detail in part 2 but fuckall to address it in part 3.
hence the tribunal.
the needs should still be written on your statement but you will find that class sizes and 1:1 will be less detailed as this is structured into the school, I would advise to remove any should words and also re visit SS to ask the HT as well. mine contains words like teachh, teachers experience with autism, speech therapy to be include in everyday curriculum as advised by speech therapist and reviewed monthly, provided with communications aids to improve communication, personal workstation for 1:1 work. I was worried when I first recieved my statement as all I had heard about was quantity it took me a while to get my head around that it was written for special school.
It's really disappointing, god only knows when I'll get some quiet time to go through it all!! I think it's outrageous that as parents of children with special needs we need to push for the so called professionals to do their jobs properly!! There should be laws in place to ensure they do their utmost to ensure a statement is as good as possible for the child.
They will often try to say don't need to specify ss statements, but the SEN Code of Practice says they do.
SOSSEN had some info recently which said that LAs were leaving out eg SALT on ss statements and as the ss had a salt on site and the parents knew their child would get salt they did not query it and then the next year the LA said your child doesn't need salt so can go to mainstream. And when the parents complained the LA said 'you didn't challenge the lack of SALT at the time'
So is best for everything to be in
But it probably does not have to be quantified to quite the same extent but staff ratios etc should be stated and everything which is on site and will need to access should be at least mentioned
And yes change 'should' to 'must'
They should have asked you to name your preference for Part 4 at this stage.
catherinea1971...I had a similar shock when I saw my first draft (and second draft) statement. Mine was for MS but I do know that as already said, even for SS the statement should be written in such a way as to be legally enforceable...which will require at least some quantification (I would have thought) about ratios etc and any specific therapies needed and amounts thereof?
I went through my statement before the meeting and had a draft re-write prepped but did not want to seem too "pushy" at the meeting so I let the Statementing Officer re-draft following my meeting. Draft 2 was equally wishy-washy with no real concessions.
Draft 3, which became the final version, was my redraft and I perhaps should have offered to do this at Draft 2 to save time.
Make every provision an obligation not an option and if anything is unclear then make it clear...I tried to use wording from my reports where possible but don't be afraid to create/amend the drafting yourself...if your reports etc are as vague as mine were, you will have to!
I had a few "but we all know what this means", "the school will know what this means", "it has to be flexible", "you need to trust the school a bit more" etc etc arguments from the LA...my argument was always it needs to be clear enough to be picked up and understood even by people who are not privy to the initial statementing process/my son and there is ALWAYS drafting to cover what is needed...it might just need a bit of thought and discussion.
I also found it helpful to email my drafting to the statementing officer as well as sending hard copies....on the basis they are more likely to agree to drafting if all they have to do is cut and paste it.
PS I share your frustration at having to make the document right on top of trying to do everything else we have to do...they know full well the document needs to be enforceable so all the weasel words are just at best laziness or at worst a deliberate strategy...I finished my final draft at 3am on a weekday (so had to be up at 6am for school run) but I sent it to the officer there and then...because I wanted them to see (a) I turned the docs around quicker than they did and (b) I was up all night doing it...it was a bit of a passive aggressive move if I am honest "poor Mum up to her eyeballs having to re-draft in the middle of the night"...but then I was beyond fed-up at the messing around by that stage. I like to think it added to the "this Mum is not going to give up" air I was striving for (in the flesh I am uselessly nice!)
hi i had my ds staement in similar manner it was very broad too i arranged meetings with them and also i requested a parent partnership to also attend the meeting with me in support so maybe its something you could look at contacting your local parent patnership team i have it now specified and quatified not perfect but far better. the ss should have been named because it is legally binding document which you can hold the school to if they do not provide the services but if the name is not there then how is legally binding? my ds son's current nursery is on the statement but from september the ss has been named.
I all, just to update, I have spoken to a lovely lady at IPSEA this morning, she has advised me to make an appointment to discuss the statement and have some of the wording changed as well as getting some more specifics added. Fingers crossed that they will make the changes without any messing about.
Thanks for all your help
Just a word of warning. We did this and delayed issuing of final statement by five weeks. In meeting she agreed with everything we had to say about where it was lacking and said that none of what we were asking for was impossible. Final Statement was the same as the draft with the school named. They settled (giving us everything we'd asked for) 10 days before the tribunal. So I'd say consider whether the meeting will be constructive or not. You can always send an email instructing them to proceed to issuing the Final Statement. Does the statement contradict the reports / miss out recommendations in the report or is the only way to get some expert opinions and take them to tribunal.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.