Here some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
Anyone know?(10 Posts)
The LEA has named a school on ds's proposed amended statement (I know they shouldn't have) that is entirely unsuitable. Prior to naming the school the LEA sought opinion from the school who provided extensive reasons as to why it couldn't provide for ds, why it was an inefficient use of resources and why his admission would be to the detriment of other pupils there. I fully agree so don't dispute this.
Nonetheless the school has been named on the statement although the LEA haven't ascertained yet whether the school will take ds ( it's not looking hopeful that they'll refuse and refer it to the Director of Education) and if they do, no doubt the LEA will induce them to accept ds.
On receipt of finalised statement we will appeal to SENDIST anyway but with the timewasting and procrastinating the LEA have done it will be early October before we receive it and of course ds is without provision until then at least and possibly January at the earliest because of the Tribunal Service timescales.
Would Tribunal look unfavourably on the LEA for naming a school that had already stated unequivocally that they can't meet his needs?
Heard today that the placement I thought all the delays were for and that I didn't want either isn't going to open January after all but next September instead the one bright spot on what has been a very dark week tbh.
You can name your own school - if it's mainstream or ss there has to be a good reason why the LEA won't name it.
Have a look at ACE, they have a good guide for checking statements.
Also this link is DoE website
Also SENCoP has info on this.
Sorry is brief, will come back later.
Well it's because I want a non maintained school and they can't come up with an alternative that they've named a school that can't meet his needs I suppose. The only others they've discussed are one that doesn't exist and the one that was going to to be built and open in January and now isn't and one that's 11 to 16 placement only. It smacks of desperation really.
Ah, right. A private mainstream school? Well, I'm sure you know that you have to give pretty conclusive evidence that the school will be the only one that can meet his needs to get a LA to name this without going to tribunal.
But how bloody rubbish of the LEA to name those schools. I can't see a tribunal allowing that tbh - sounds like you've got a good case for getting that school removed. But might be worth looking at others (maintained) which might be alternatives in case you can't get the private one named.
I have looked at each and every one, their ed psych and and Inclusion Officer concede there is no maintained provision to suggest and he needs the small specialist provision I asked for.
It's working out very cost effective to timewaste as it is saving them funding any support. It's unlikely they will actually go to Tribunal as they have no evidence that the school they suggest is suitable and their own people concede it isn't but if they concede at the last minute which I imagine they will they will have saved £20,000 plus of support.
have you got it in writing from the EP and IncO?
Yes I have the LIO documented by the head of the unit who distributed the minutes at the time and it wasn't challenged and then I have a report from their ed psych. The Ops panel cut the Inclusion officer out of the discussion and decision and they disregarded the Ed psych report even though it has been brought to their attention.It's pretty unbelievable how they are acting tbh but they seem to be winning because the endless delays are saving them money.
it's at times like this that you can see why people go to the local paper. a bit of high profile rubbishing of the lea might wake them up a bit. doesn't help you maintain a professional position though.
have ipsea just suggested waiting it out? is a period of HE impossible if you eventually get the provision you need?
I will HE because I have no choice tbh although my solicitor is going to push for interim tuition.
We haven't been waiting it out really the solicitor makes numerous Judicial Review warnings, they ask for extensions (granted because we'd be seen as unreasonable) then they act.
But they make irrational decisions so the first JR warning got them to issue a letter saying they didn't intend to amend the statement.Solicitor points out they have to amend the statement because it names a 11 to 16 provision and so it can't be named on a post 16 statement.
A month later after the next JR warning they concede she is right and say they will amend the statement.
Six weeks later after another JR warning they issue a proposed amended statement but they have named the school and signed and dated it. They rewrite it to fit the school they named without reassessment with no reference to any programmes or curriculum ds needs.
Solicitor points out that they have signed and dated and named the school on a proposed amended statement. Tells them I will not accept it and to finalise it so that we can proceed to Tribunal.
They have eight weeks to, in effect, stamp the exact same document to make it a final amended statement.
What will happen is the eight weeks will pass solicitor will issue another JR warning, they'll ask for an extension and then at he last minute they'll issue it.
We are already looking at mid October before they issue a final statement. It will be January before it gets to Tribunal at the earliest and no doubt they'll try and delay that as well.
There will be no consequences for them, a slap on the wrist at best I suppose but it will be worth it for them I suppose.
cup of tea and a lie down i think.
sometimes having to be reasonable is such a pita.
Join the discussion
Please login first.