Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
ABA in part 3, not part 4!(44 Posts)
Wonder if you can help us. We are happy with the school in the statement but we
want the statement to state that the 1:1 support for the number of hours
specified, is carried out by our tutors.
The LA's response is that we cannot specify this as we have not appealed part 4,
and that by not appealing part 4, we are declaring our satisfaction at the
school being able to meet the needs of our son, and therefore have no right at
all to insist that part 3 is changed in this regard.
With most things the LEA can steam roller schools but the school / governing body do have a say. The school would of agreed in principal to your sons statement before being named in part 4 which means any huge changes would also need the schools agreement. So you would be in a position that even if tribunal agreed with you they would have to take into consideration the school and their views should be given consideration. How long did it take for the LEA to let you know this?
It would be worth running it past IPSEA or SOSSEN to check if there are any legal precedents for this. But I would have thought that having your tutors in would be a similar situation to having autism advisory teachers coming in to school to model appropriate techniques for his class teachers (or speech therapist or ot come to that). None of these has to specified in part 4.
You are not asking for an aba school or to transform a mainstream school into an aba school by employing your own teachers to the exclusion of the existing teachers. If I have understood your position correctly from previous posts, you want to have aba tutors in school to facilitate early intervention with your son which will be able to be gradually withdrawn as he learns the appropriate skills to cope increasingly independently in mainstream education.
The more I think about it the more ridiculous your lea's argument seems. Logically, their argument would preclude anyone contesting provision specified in part 3 without also contesting part 4 and SENDIST specifically ask you to say whether you are appealing part 3, part 4 or parts 3 and 4. You specifically want a particular, supportive, mainstream setting, so you are not contesting part 4, but you want the one to one support to be appropriately trained in ABA, as this has been shown to help him progress better than other methods and this belongs in part 3.
You could also give sendist a quick ring to see if they can confirm upfront that your lea are talking rubbish.
you can absolutely appeal parts 2 & 3 without appealing part 4. if we had pursued our tribunal originally (so 18 months ago) that is what we woudl have ended up doing - because LA part 4, but parts 2 & 3 were a load of tosh.
we were advised at the time it was doable in practical terms. <we didn't go ahead, as it was not necessary for us - since part 4 named a school we completely and utterly trusted, and knew woudl do exactly what we wanted>
I guess the argument is: you are happy with the school, and therefore you shoudl trust them to hire someone who fits in with their establishment and can, in their view, deliver what is set out in parts 2/3.
In your position, I would not be pushing to say that only my tutors can fit the bill, but would be working out how I can ensure that parts 2/3 add up to something that only my tutors coudl deliver, and then make sure they apply for the job...
Absolutely I know that I can appeal parts 2 and 3 without part 4, but the tribunal decided last time that since we wanted the school (a different one) named in part 4 (that time along with ABA) then we must have agreed that it can meet his needs.
Okay, okay. I need to put the last tribunal to bed and start afresh and attempt to believe in a system that is stacked against parents and full of charlatons. I find it difficult to get help from people like even IPSEA because I just sound so deluded and paranoid.
Their response makes me mad though. They have said that I have disagreed with all IEP targets which is crazy since I wrote nearly all of them. I didn't sign any however, but that is because I never signed ones at the old placement and they still went ahead so saw no point.
They are using this to presumably indicate that our consultant has no business advising or arranging ds' educational provision, and that the LA employees should do so instead. But how is what I want different from them contracting out where they can't deliver identified provision themselves?
And based on this below, will I not be able to argue parental preference?
 Section 324 Education Act 1996:
(1) If, in the light of an assessment under section 323 of any child's educational needs and of any representations made by the child's parent in pursuance of Schedule 27, it is necessary for the local education authority to determine the special educational provision which any learning difficulty he may have calls for, the authority shall make and maintain a statement of his special educational needs.
(2) The statement shall be in such form and contain such information as may be prescribed.
(3) In particular, the statement shall
(a) give details of the authority's assessment of the child's special educational needs, and
(b) specify the special educational provision to be made for the purpose of meeting those needs, including the particulars required by subsection (4).
(4) The statement shall
(a) specify the type of school or other institution which the local education authority consider would be appropriate for the child,
(b) if they are not required under Schedule 27 to specify the name of any school in the statement, specify the name of any school or institution (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) which they consider would be appropriate for the child and should be specified in the statement, and
(c) specify any provision for the child for which they make arrangements under section 319 and which they consider should be specified in the statement
Yes they are talking rubbish, of course you can appeal part 3 without appealing part 4. Just look at the SENDIST appeal form and it explains this.
This was, in fact what we started off doing (though in our case, despite not contesting the school, we then changed it to include part 4 as we're asking for aba during school holidays so it technically counts as 'education otherwise than at school'. Are you asking for aba during holidays? If so, actually you probably should be appealing part 4.)
In any case, have you got this in writing from the LA? I think it would serve you well to use at tribunal to show how obstructive they are being.
Are you getting any help with this or doing it yourself?
If you want to see my grounds for appeal pm me, happy to send it.
baily It is what they sent to SENDIST as their opposition.
I'm doing this myself this time. I haven't really started though. Loooooong way to go.
Oh, IPSEA are supposed to be helping me, but who knows. I haven't got a contact and can never get through.
Your argument is, then, that ABA is the most appropriate form of support for ds? In this case, why would you be contesting part 4, as you are appealing the specifics of the provision, which is detailed in part 3.
Might be worth you talking to a solicitor/advocate to get clarification of how to best word this. There are people who can give you initial advice for free, I'm sure you know them already.
Yes, ABA is the most appropriate but:
This is also what they have quoted:
Catchpole v Buckinghamshire CC and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal  ELR 463 at page 471F to 472C - At most, section 9 [of the Act] creates a bias in favour of parental choice where more than one school is under consideration and where, to put it in very crude terms, everything else is equal.
 B v Isle of White Council  ELR 279 it was stated, per curiam:
all that anyone could do when judging whether provision was educational or non-educational was to recognise that there was an obvious spectrum from the clearly educational (in the ordinary schools sense of that word) at one end to the clearly medical at the other, take all relevant facts into account, apply common sense and do ones best
 The following principles can be taken from the decision:
o In deciding whether the occupational therapy is an educational or non-educational need, what has to be considered is the nature of the provision itself.
o Therapy which has educational benefits does not make it educational provision
Which I think is some argument that ABA isn't educational provision but therapy with educational benefits.
When I say 'they', I mean it is an ever increasingly experienced solicitor that they hire who calls himself the 'ABA terminator'.
Well yes, ABA isn't educational provision. But neither, in itself, is the autism outreach service. But what both provide is a form of support that helps access education. As you know, you have to find evidence that ABA does this more successfully.
Are you a member of the aba yahoo group? Worth posting on there.
Who is this solicitor?! We've got tribunal looming in February, hope our la don't know about him!
Ah, I get it now. They are going to argue that ABA isn't educational provision and therefore can't be put in part 3.
It can be put in part 4 as a 'setting' but not part 3 as educational provision.
Last time they were banging on about it not being able to meet social skills development. Right now they are banging on about social skills not being an educational requirement so presumably they have clocked that we would have made sure his social skills had improved.
And yes we have Local Authority, you are so shallow you ripped our your heart and put it on your face/name but with now no beat.
There's this nugget too:
The Council does not accept that the school requires the advice of an Independent Autism Consultant agreed by the Appellants. It is for the Council to arrange ds' educational provision and it has provided half-termly visits from the Autism Advisory Service. It is also unclear what power the Tribunal has to compel the school to take advice from an independent consultant with regard to the provision delivered by the school
I would argue that ABA is 'socio-educational therapy - a term that a Clinical Psycholoist used for DS's social skills attainment.
ABA addresses social and communication deficits and if these are described in Part 2 then the support for this logically falls into Part 3.
"The Council does not accept that the school requires the advice of an Independent Autism Consultant agreed by the Appellants. It is for the Council to arrange ds' educational provision and it has provided half-termly visits from the Autism Advisory Service. It is also unclear what power the Tribunal has to compel the school to take advice from an independent consultant with regard to the provision delivered by the school".
This is bloody nonsense:
a) it's not up to the Council to decide whether or not it accepts the Independant Autism Consultant's advice - this advice is advice that will be considered by the Tribunal in determining Part 3 and if the advice is appropriate the Council will be compelled to accpt and act upon it. basically the Coucil is saying that any non-LA procured reports are invalid - which is bollocks.
b) while the Council does have a statutory responsiblity to arrange DS's educational provision it has a similiar stat resp to ensure that provision is suitable for his age and attainment and that all his SENs have been identified, asssessed and are adequately supported. The independant advice will serve to ensure those stat resps are fully discharged
Your Council really is being obstructive. All this 'deep law' just to try to deny support. I can't help feeling the cards arestacked against you while you contine to deal with an LA that is so entrenched and a Tribunal that appears to support the LA (or at least does not support the parent).
Thank you Wet That is really helpful.
I think what is meant about the independent consultant, is that we are asking her to go in to support/advise/monitor our TAs instead of their autism service. They are suggesting that the school cannot be made to take on board her advice, and this is probably as true as it doesn't have to take on board any of the advice from the Autism team either presumably.
But I don't really want her to advise the school. I want her to support and advise the tutors predominantly, in how to get ds to participate in the lessons as delivered and set by the teacher - however, I'd be over the moon if the class teacher wanted to be involved.
Yes I agree. If ds is severely impaired enough in social communication/interaction this will of course impact on his ability to learn and to access his education. Particularly in Reception and Y1 where much of the curriculum is based on social & emotional development.
And if he can't make sense of social interactions how tf is he going to learn?
One of the core arguments we are putting forward is that ds has big problems with motivation. Without the motivation to join in, he simply will not learn. (You can lead a horse to water...) ABA is proven to increase his motivation, hence is a crucial support mechanism for enabling learning.
Agree with everything wetaugust said. I sincerely hope this time you get a more impartial panel.
You want me to post a funny paragraph from the opposition?
You have to make sure you are clear that the ABA programme will follow the curriculum (as much as possible) so they can't use that against you. ie that the tutors etc are there to help ds follow the normal curriculum, not to set there own. They are simply using a different (and proven to be successful) approach to ensuring his inclusion to that offered by the LA.
The Council also submits that ABA is not solely educational provision. It involves using behavioural learning theory to modify behaviours in a child which is much wider than simply being provided in an educational setting.
By functionally assessing the relationship between a targeted behaviour and the environment, the methods of ABA can be used to change that behaviour. However, ABA does not offer or teach DS a curriculum, it is not provided by qualified teaching professionals, it is not regulated and inspected by Ofsted.
(I actually LOL when I read this) wtf?
ABA is the differentiation/reasonable adjustment, not the curriculum ffs.
"However, ABA does not offer or teach DS a curriculum, it is not provided by qualified teaching professionals, it is not regulated and inspected by Ofsted."
By that token, s/lt is not regulated by OFSTED or theoretically offered by 'qualified teaching professionals' (that is laughable, the thoguht of an ill educated clueless LSA being described as such).
This is why there are movements afoot to establish British Board of Behaviour Analysts (with which I am closely involved), to get profession registered with HPC and to ensure those working with you are either BCBA or have at least an MSc in ABA.It is also the reason for the present ABA Competencies project under auspices of Treehouse.
The arguments presented are utterly nonsensical.
Oh and a curriculum based on something like ABLLS is far cleares, data driven and specific than any vague EYFS drivel.
Join the discussion
Please login first.