Received proposed statement today [confused]

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

It says if x attends a mainstream school, the LA will provide additional resources at the level of Band 3+ of the Authorities banding system in order to assist the mainstream school in meeting his SEN.

What does Band 3+ mean? Is this something I am supposed to know?

I'll be back with more questions no doubt as it all looks very confusing

[choc0clock]

you need to reject this nonsense. the statement should not talk about funding about clearly lay out your DC's needs (see part 2) and how this needs are met (part 3).

it should clearly sprecify and quantify provision (i.e. how much salt, how much OT, how often and by whom). it should also clearly state how many hours of 1:1 support your child will get.

and be aware of wordings such as 'access to', 'oppoetunities for' etc.

[choc0clock]

they mean nothing and should not be in there either.

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

Thanks choc, they have said he should have at least 6 hours of speech and language in the first term and then at least 3 hours in the collaborative package.

The set up/transitional package of support should consist of at least 3 direct contacts and 3 indirect contacts of OT support in the first 2 terms only and then the collaborative package of support should consist of at least 1 direct session and 1 indirect session per term.

I haven't even got a clue whether this is enough for him?

[choc0clock]

is this clearly on the statement?

what about 1:1 support?

have you looked at the reports - how do the recommrndations reflect the reports?

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

Yes the above is word for word in part 3, nothing about 1:1 support. I think I need to sit down and dissect it tonight once the DC's are gone to bed.

Just panicking slightly in case its a load of shit as I haven't got long to make changes and I don't even know what changes need to be made! Thanks

[choc0clock]

do you (or ep, salt etc) think he needs 1:1

i dont know your child. he might not need it.

[Icimoi]

Referring to banding is unlawful, because they could change provision by changing the funding allocated to bands without you having any grounds of appeal. So that needs to come out and specified provision needs to come in.

Don't accept OT by reference to "contacts". After all, a contact could be little more than an OT saying hallo. The statement should set out whether it is 1:1, small group or what, and how long for, and the qualifications required of the OT. If this is a package which is supposed to be operated in school, it will need to provide for TAs or similar to attend OT sessions and/or receive training from the OT, and time for the OT to set up the programme.

[AttilaTheMeerkat]

That statement you've received needs rejecting out of hand. Funding is not an issue you should be concerned with and the statement should not actually mention it. Instead the statement should clearly state the provision offered to your child and how it is quantified. If provision is neither quantified or specified properly and is instead all vague and woolly (along the lines of access to or opportunities for..) worded the statement needs to be rejected by you.

If you are still unsure I would tell IPSEA the full contents of Parts 2 and 3 and they will tell you what it should say. I sincerely hope you will not have to take this LEA to Tribunal to sort this out but that scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility.

//www.ipsea.org.uk is the website and they also offer a callback service as well as a helpline number.

[tempe48]

Also time for ot and sly to liaise with school staff, do assessments, write reports and attend the annual review - otherwise this will either not happen or it will come out of contact time!

[tempe48]

Sorry predictive text - slt

[uggerthebugger]

What everyone else has said, plus this - when they do this sort of thing, the LA isn't singling you out for special treatment. It isn't personal, at least not to them.

The chances are that 95% of the first draft statements or EHCPs that your LA will issue this year will be just as vague and flimsy as the one they've given you. It's been 8 years since I last saw a lawful first draft of a statement - it was back then, FFS...

Most LAs work to a largely unlawful SEN operating model where only a few parents will question them, and even fewer will challenge them - and the penalties to LA staff for operating unlawfully are almost non-existent. But most parents who challenge LAs and go to Tribunal get what their kids need and deserve.

Go get some help - from here, from IPSEA, or from SOS!SEN - and go get 'em..

[Ineedmorepatience]

Well said ugger !! Sad but true!!

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

Thanks for all the advice, I'm just working my way through it now and realised they haven't sent me any Appendices, luckily I have some of them but not all.

If I am totally honest DS has improved so much in the past 6 months that I hardly recognise the boy they are talking apart in part 2 however he still has quite complex needs and without a doubt needs a statement. However they do seem to think he has a few single words - he doesn't have any, not sure where this came from

DS is 3 and in a specialist nursery setting which I chose because of the high staff to child ratio. There is only 3 children in the setting at the moment, they can have up to 8. I chose this because DS needed to be in a small group and couldn't function when there were more children than that around, he may as well have not been there as he would get very distracted and distressed in a larger group.

This nursery was however only ever meant to be short term until a nursery place came up at the specialist school I wanted him to go to. Now though after visiting again I don't think it is suitable for him and would rather he went to a mainstream school with a resource base for children with ASD.

Current nursery don't require a statement and if I choose a mainstream school with a resource base he won't go until next year so what do I do?

Will current nursery have to follow the statement? and should I fight to get the statement correct now for next year? He could be totally different in a years time.

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

lol just saw chico time

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

Lots of 'access to' and 'opportunities to' wording throughout, Bollocks anyway

[StarlightMcKenzie]

You don't need to rewrite it. It is so very shit quite frankly that you can simply say that and tell them you expect a redraft that complies with the law.

Failing that, respond within 2 weeks saying you reject it and will be sending comments shortly. As long as you do that you can take your time.

[KOKOagainandagain]

ime if the provision is wooly and unspecified in reports (which it is because the LA require it to be) it will be cut and paste into part 3. If you ask for it to be quantified the LA will say they can't because they and you are not experts and you will need a professional report to recommend this for the LA to cut and paste This means Indi reports. Which LA will refuse to accept until forced to do so at tribunal.

Check to see if appendices specify and quantify.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

'If you ask for it to be quantified the LA will say they can't because they and you are not experts and you will need a professional report to recommend this for the LA to cut and paste This means Indi reports.'

Practically, this is what is probably what you need to do eventually so might as well get on with it.

However, the LA has a legal duty to specify and quantify and it is THEIR problem, not yours if they have failed to commission reports that enable them to do this. Therefore you can tell them to go back to the professionals and insist upon the recommendations that will enable them to do their job to a statutory standard.

[Jennifersrabbit]

Hang on, is it a draft statement or a draft EHCP? DS has an EHCP and that does it a bit differently - jury out on whether better or worse!
It specifies certain outcomes they want DS to achieve and how those are going to be met. Then states they will put in a certain amount of funding which is decided according to bands. Bands in our LA are a way of classifying children's need and what provisions school/ La should do - so band 0 is no extra support needed, band 1 specifies various things from school delegated budget, band 2 ditto, band 3 you start applying for LA resources.
DS has an actual sum of money stated in his EHCP though as what the LA will put in. Good news they can't just say 'well we've employed a cheap TA for 20 hours, never mind he hasn't made any progress'. Bad news, they have a specific budget for DS and if it doesn't cover what he needs we have a problem.
Hope that's of some help, but do heck which type you're dealing with.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Bands in EHCPs are illegal. The 'LA's' way of doing things does not trump the law.

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

Thanks everyone. I am going to reject it and fight for a statement that my DS deserves. I have contacted IPSEA so hopefully they will get back to me soon.

Would they read the statement and offer advice about changes that need to be made? Or is it just general advice?

I will contact parent partnership tomorrow as well.

Yes it is a draft statement Jennifer.

[AttilaTheMeerkat]

"I will contact parent partnership tomorrow as well"

PP can tow the party line so they may well prove to be unhelpful overall.

[choc0clock]

what attila said re PP. ours was in cahoots with the LA. not always the case but be aware of that possibility.

Ipsea was god send for us. good luck and let us know how you get on.

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

I did wonder whether that would be possible, I'm sure they operate in the same building. Perhaps I will give them a miss, they weren't all that helpful when I asked them to check my parental views. Thanks again, what would I do without MN.

[Thankgoodnessforcheerios]

Would anyone be willing to proof read my draft email rejecting the statement in a PM? Apologies if this is asking too much, you have all been so helpful and I just want to get it right. It's not too long