Here some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
So the decision came through..(8 Posts)
And I am convinced the judge is on crack!?!
They have not named part 4...fair enough as I had a feeling they wouldnt anyway, even though that is actually the main issue for me...the provision is not much, however the little provision I do want and he did have the senco couldnt be bothered to implement and the school will always be like this, and I cant chnage the mindset of the school.
So some of the things that has grabbled me is, the senco said my son currently gets xxx provision, and the judge put this in the decision, however my son does not get xxx and never did. I could not challenge it at the time as it was a new provision and only he could answer if he was getting it at that time, but when I got home and asked he said no, senco said all her staff are trained, only for me to find job ad for an LSA stating no school experience required.
Judge allowed my late evidence, but in the decsion she states she did not?!?
Judge said she prefered LA evidence that my son is working at a level 6 (teacher assesments which are only guestimates at the end of the day) rather than my sons actual test results that he sat in a controlled exam setting gathered over 1.5 years which is all part and parcel of the schools measure of progress, showing he is the worst in his class and not making any personal progress (based on his personal tests) and also "the school are unlikely to infalte greades becasue they are outstanding on Ofsted" WTF?!?! What that has to do with anything is beyone me
Judge said while she agreed with Dyscalculia diagnoses from EP she did not agree with level of provision EP recommended (2 EPs have said in my evidence DS has a age 8-9 ability in maths, he is almost 15!)...LA did not have any counter arugement to this other than senco saying " i dont think he is that bad" and the LA showing an example of one good peice of homework.
Senco have never issued an IEP for my DS, so not sure how they can say he is making progress in his area of need...cant say that when there is no evidence to show, but the judge decided to overlook that gem.
Judge Agreed my DS should have breaks to keep him on track..didnt specify how much though
Judge agreed to my DS needing to stay in small class, I have the expert witnesses saying it should be no more than 10, and as I mention the panel agree with this, his current school class size is 10, but judge didnt feel the need to specify this number...now if I was to move away, I will still have the statement and how exactly will another borough be able to interpret "a small class" some could be considered 20 given most schools are min 25
Judge Agreed my son needs to engage in a interactive enviroment with kinestic (sp?) learning...senco said yes we do all that, however I do not think they fully realise what that means as it is a whole class affair and they would have to change the whole way the class it taught which is not ever going to happen and will not be compatible for the rest of the class.
Said my DS should be formally assessed every half term?!!? Thats not even something I or the LA asked for, that is too much and he will get peeved off, I only asked once per year
Anyhoo, while it goes over to a barrister to look at the decision, as it is clearly a case of cherry picking parts of my sons needs and experts advice to fit around the school rather than what my son actually needs and relying on evidence no sane person would ordinarilly (4 experts who saw my son over a period of 2-3 days all say the same thing, only the LA say the opposite after carrying out the least testing and only seeing DS for 1 hour, judge goes with LA?!?) and my Disabilty discrimination claim against the school goes ahead, I am seriously looking at home schooling, as I can not allow the school to use my son as a cash cow, they have the funding for him yet refuse to put the support in place while the senco drives around in her Mercs!!
Problem is my son will need his slt support and some additional held for his maths as it is so poor and this is where I know the LA will not provide (not that they really are now) can a tribunal order support for homeschooling, slightly worried about what happens after Y11 if he is homeschooled as no doubt they will want to whip away the statement totally.
Did the judges first name begin with A?
No a J, and the clerk at the hearing said they were a nice panel...GOD help the parents that come across the horrible ones!!?
In fairness the judge and one of the panel members were not nasty, they were just very weak, they did not really grill the LA nor question why DS has never had an IEP or how they are going to implement all these provisions they are saying they can, in fact the SENCO had the floor for most of the time and was stronger than the judge, the other panle member was a bitch...you could see she was just not going to find any thing in my favour
It fills me with horror that they can get it so wrong - we didn't have to go to tribunal in the end but had similar experience with LA SS placement panel failing to grasp basics, coming to contradictory conclusions, ignoring evidence...
Where do you go from here? How quickly can you appeal?
This sounds a very poor judgment legally. How have they left Part 4 blank if it was an appeal ground?
You would be entitled to ask for a review on the ground alone.An application to set aside must be made in writing within 28 days of the day the
decision in question was sent.
A review sends the case back to the judge who has to decide whether s/he feels they got it wrong. If they agree, they made mistakes, they can amend them or even conduct a fresh hearing. If they don't you would have to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
You can apply directly to the UT on a point of law. See SOS-SEN's guide here
They said he should stay at current school..which is interesting as my DS went back today only to be instantly issued with one of those pesky detentions..AGAIN.
This is the same detention they said to panel did not have to be after school. They seem to think that becasue he is stuck there for now that I cant bring a DD claim agaist them...how bizarre of them
Did the judge's second name begin with A? Have you told the barrister about the job ad you found? And can you get a copy of the timetable or something to prove the SENCO was lying about the provision ds isn't getting?
Nope second name was M. I have told solicitor about Job ad however people do not seem to be so fussed about this?!?! I woulld have thought misleading information would be a problem, but apparetnly it has to be significant...If I could do this on my own I would. so I really do have to wonder as certain legal professionals are offering different interpretations.
DS is almost 15 and can say if he does or does not get xxx provision. SENCO said he gets 1:1, son has said no I do not, unless the school gang up and call him an outright liar, which everyone knows he is very honest and polite (when he feels like it,lol)
Join the discussion
Please login first.