Proposed statment- kyliebump help!!! :)

[Jimjams]

Hi Kyliebump

we received the draft statement today.
We're reasonably happy with part 2 - it describeshis problems fairly well, and recognises his speech disorder as well as the autism.

But part 3 oh dear- what a pile of waffle.

There is no mention of an LSA just statements like "daily individual and small-group support to develop pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills" Well a) small group won't work full stop.

The bit about providing for his speech and langauge needs says things like "the SALT will then prepare a programme which states the salt goals. This will include specific speech and langauge activities as appropriate and will include advice and guidance for classroom staff and parents on the relevant techniques and activities which can be incorporated into the classroom blah blah blah"

What we want is a TRAINED LSA to provide daily SALT- they will need input from a SALT and also training in things like PECS- All it says wrt this is "A will benefit from daily individual support to work on a communication programme advised by a SALT"

Leaving a piece of paper for an LSA will be no good at all (tried it - doesn't work).

So there's nothing about mealtime assistants (he's gluten free so needs supervising to make sure he doesn't eat other food). Nothing about breaktime assistants (without which he's liable to wander off and end up under a car). Nothing about the transition between school and nursery (we're expecting it to take a year), Nothing about the level of support he will be provided with (they have told the school they will provide 0.8 and school will make up 0.2- shouldn't there be something about that in here). Nothing about having his own LSA at all "classroom staff" is the closest we get. Looking at the statement the bits where they have specified individual support could be provided in less than half an hour!

I've tried to contact IPSEA and the NAS education advice line. Waiting to hear back. Any advice welcomed (from anyone!)

Sorry the meeting was so frustraing jimjams - am amazed that you should be asked to fund OT! Just a thought, but if the meeting in September turns down the request for MTA, then I would think that that would be a good time to ask for the statement to be finalised as soon as possible in order to give you the opportunity to go to Tribunal. You can indicate that you are still not happy, but you want the statement finalised so that you have something to appeal against. Negotiations can still go on whilst the Tribunal date approaches, and LEAs try hard to resolve things rather than going to Tribunal.

If it does look like you are going to end up at Tribunal for SALT, MTA etc, then why not throw in a request for OT in Pt3 as well - you will have nothing to lose. The LEA is extremely unlikely to agree to this request (hence only throwing it in if you are pretty sure you are going to Tribunal anyway - or if you want to go to Tribunal solely over that matter), but the Tribunal may find for you - maybe if you are requesting something along the lines of "OT assessment and subsequent advice to the school, as appropriate". It won't help the situation if the reason for no OT is that there is physically not an OT that can see your ds, but if it is just a question of funding then if the Tribunal directs it then the LEA will have to sort it out. Just a thought anyway. In order for this to have any chance of succeeding, the contributory reports for the statement must be recommending OT input or assessment. If they don't then the LEA will just argue that they don't have to put anything in the statement that hasn't been recommended as part of the assessment.

Crikey, it's after midnight and we're off to Center Parcs tomorrow - probably should have finished packing by now...

Have fun at center parcs. Good idea about the OT (all reports recommend OT and have done for the last year and a half!) if we do go to tribunal for anything else. i am hoping we can avoid that.

I think the LEA agree that an MTA is needed, the in-fighting is just over who will fund it (school or LEA). The next proposed statement should include the MTA. I've also asked for the wording on the SALT to be tightened up in part 2 and to make it clear that in part 3 it is being provided by a trained LSA. I think she agreed to this (althoughit seemed to be a total u-turn so I'm not entirely sure). I don't think I'd go to tribunal over OT becuase the area is too grey and it would be too much hassle iyswim. I'm prepared to fight for SALT as it isn't grey at all and is desperately needed. Far more than OT. I think SALT will make the difference between the possibilty of being high functioning or not, OT would be helpful but isn't the key for him I guess.

Still can't believe the Ed psych suggested we paid for OT. Mind you she made it perfectly clear who paid her wages!

The SENCO was great I have to say.

I always feel like I've been in a boxing match after those meetings. It's all just too emotional!