School not providing what is on IEP.

[FatherSpodoKomodo]

DS1 is year 1 and nearly 6. I was shown his IEP in October and was told he would be doing Narrative therapy (continued from Reception) and would also be doing a Motor Skills programme. I didn't see his IEP at the March parents evening.

I found out last week that he has only done one session of the Motor Skills programme.

What happens when a school doesn't give the child what they said they would on an IEP? What is my next step?

Devilinside as daftdame has said you need to write to the LA and ask them to make a statutory assessment of your child's SEN. The template letters are on the link the beginning of the process is pretty straightforward but there is also a helpline on there which can give you more specific support.

insanity What your daughter received was effective support.

However the ineffective support, not doing anything re. swimming cancellation, child anxious in a group of non academic equals, could have happened in a school under the previous legislation. (Has frequently, the SN boards illustrate this only too well). They balance the disruption caused by one anxious child (could be that they just withdraw) child against using their designated funding to manage more disruptive non- statemented children.

I think what you have with your daughter's school is genuinely caring, sensitive, understanding and professional staff. This data can be used by the government to champion a pro-active approach. Although some children may actually need this approach to be on a sliding scale basis, they become less anxious over changes in routine through positive experience and can self manage.

I expect your daughter's school will be fully capable of documenting effective provision, a long as they have the courage of their convictions.

When dealing with staff that are not quite up to that calibre, possibly through no fault of their own, anything which could encourage them to reflect on what effective support actually looks like will be a good thing.

Effective support is cost effective, however it is funded. It may be that your daughter uses only 5k of the support and no more, in which case your school will know it is worth spending all of that 5K (with a floating TA) to prevent having to provision map. It is not in the school's best interests to escalate needs with the current legislation. In this case trying to present a false picture of need would have a worse outcome for the school and your daughter.

^that should be (with your daughter's share of a floating TA).

^ The class teacher may also have been able to make the 5 minute explanation.

No dd's school will document that the hours on her statement are needed and I will ensure she keeps what she has.
My understanding is that the old statements will continue as they are it will be the new statements that will follow the new legislation after all the old statements are keeping their legal entitlement.
There is no way I will agree to dd's support by a level 3 qualified and experienced TA (it's written in her statement anyway so LA would have to go to Tribunal to get it removed) being replaced by a floating TA. That wouldn't help dd it would just save money which may be the governments intention but it's not going to happen at dd's expense

You seem so worried about funding when really the funding is no concern of yours. If you have a statement that is specified and quantified and legally enforceable then it has to be met. How it's met and with what funds isn't your problem it's ultimately the LA's because school can, if they choose say, they don't have the resources in which case the LA has to fund it or they'd have to account to the secretary of state.

insanity Funding is the only truly quantifiable aspect in terms of severity of need. If less resource is needed the needs are less.

How else do you track progress in the severity of need, or do you expect needs to remain severe in all cases, for a lifetime?

Whilst this may be true for some, some people do overcome their needs. I know people who have overcome their needs and this was unrelated to their 'treatment' by 'professionals'.

But it's not the funding that is responsible for the results it's the support itself.
I know that dd has made incredible progress because at diagnosis she was considered more severely affected than ds.
The "price" of dd's statement comes in hours, those hours could have taken place in her current school or any other.
In dd's current school those hours have seen incredible results in a different school those hours could have seen negligible results the cost to the LA would have been the same.
So I would say that it's not the costing that is the measure of need and progress it's the quality of support that determines whether or not the resources are used to the optimum effect.
Dd's progress is measured continuously not only her academic progress but also the progress made towards the targets on her IEPs and those on her statement. Dd's school is the only school I know that does three IEP reviews per year with mid way monitoring to ensure that the IEPS are still relevant and working.
I don't think needs have to be severe in order to qualify for support. In comparison to some of her school mates dd' needs are minor as they have pmld and physical disabilities too. Likewise some in dd's school have nowhere near the academic ability that dd has but don't qualify for statemented support.
I don't think that some children are more worthy than others and think that all should be supported. So if when dd's needs are met her TA supports others with needs rather than twiddling her thumbs then that can only be a good thing and in effect makes dd's statement even more cost effective.

insanity Making IEP's quantifiable is problematic. With non academic progress too often figures for success criteria are picked out of thin air (or number applied inappropriately eg 'on a scale of 1 to 10 tell me how you feel...') with no reference to norms or variables in the environment, the relationship between cause and effect. Provision is not always adequately quantified (sometimes even qualified) either, vague 'TA to support this', is all too common.

Without true quantification, it is difficult to accurately assess progress, the measurement is subjective. Support costs however and that cost is quantifiable.

^ in reality all methods of measuring progress should be used, to give a more rounded picture. I wouldn't shy away from the numbers. How did you know the quantification on the statement was accurate in the first place?

And I would say it is not support that is always responsible for results.

People can achieve well against all odds. It is what is beautiful about life. They succeed just because they believe it is possible. Their successful actions and in turn results are the fruit of that belief.

Because her statement is an accurate picture of dd's difficulties and the support she needs to meet them. Professionals made recommendations and I pressed them for timings. As it is now her statement works not because school adhere rigidly to the minutes specified but because they adapt the support to meet her needs at that particular time.
What is paramount and the reason that dd is well supported is that her TA is experienced and well qualified. Then her teacher provides an environment that is conducive to her learning, the school has experience with SEN and a desire to meet the needs of all the children there and that they consider me an equal in her education and we work together as a team,
None of that could be achieved if there wasn't a level of trust from me and an openness from the school.
My feeling is that if a school isn't open and is evasive then that is because they don't have the the expertise needed to meet a child's needs. Likewise if a parent isn't able to trust the school rather than hitting their head against a brick wall then they should consider that it isn't the school for their child and should search for an alternative rather than fighting a losing battle.

I'm not sure that believing that something is possible is an option I'd take as a strategy to see my children achieve though. It's a bit like cosmic ordering and I'm not sure God or whatever higher being you believe in works at our LA it's more the case that there's quite a few there who think they are

I sometimes think my standards are too exacting, nobody would meet them...hence in life I have to be very forgiving.

However I wish you and your daughter well.

So what if your child needs no TA 1:1 (or needs it but the school provides it with an experienced volunteer from the WI) but does need weekly direct SALT and OT?

Does the school have to source and fund the first £6k of that?

I think possibly you haven't found a place where you feel you can trust them enough to take a little step back. I know I'm a control freak but it's always at its worst if I feel I am not being given the full picture or things are being hidden from me.

I don't know Star and I'd hedge my bets that schools and LA's don't know either tbh.

Btw, I've always found it easy to make no-academic IEP targets quantifiable, though in 5 schools I have yet to find a teacher with this skill. What training do they have?

One teacher told me in no uncertain terms that this target was SMART:

For a TA to support ds with 3 spellings no less than 10 minutes, 3 times a week. Success criteria, ds spelling improves.

'Funding is the only truly quantifiable aspect in terms of severity of need. If less resource is needed the needs are less.'

I absolutely don't agree with this, - sorry.

I went to tribunal for a package of provision that cost LESS than the LA preferred model, but was measurable and accountable and crucially, delivered NOT by the LA.

I was fighting against an undefined holistic approach with 100 meetings a year or senior staff to talk about our feelings or something.

I think so but you would have to check the legislation.

You can also get minutes of your county's school forum and cabinet etc which will tell you about individual policies. Some services are 'traded' some are not.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-funding-reform-next-steps-towards-a-fairer-system

Starlight I don't disagree with your fight, in fact it sounds like we violently agree . Can of worms. Why I ache for change, but I'm like that...

"mrz the child in your school who has been denied a statement despite professionals identifying a multitude of difficulties. Please advise the parents to contact SOSSEN and IPSEA and get their support to appeal the decision."

The parents don't want to accept their child has difficulties and have been very reluctant for other professionals to be involved. They continually tell me that SaLT, Paediatrician, OT etc don't know why their child has been referred ...then I get reports from the same professionals showing him on the 0.01 percentile ... I'm afraid the parents will see this as a good thing.

"mrz Cutting delegated funding is not what the legislation promised." no it isn't is it daftdame but that is the reality across the country not just my LEA. It's the same as when the government said their would be no cuts to education budgets ...so they called it a negative increase instead.

I lost.

On the basis that the undefined holistic approach hadn't been tried, it looked impressive cost-wise, and that the HT of the school we wanted ds to attend preferred the LA unaccountable model.

Subsequently after wanting £23k for two years fading to £12k the following and £6k the year after that, my ds fell behind so badly IN JUST ONE YEAR that he required a special school placement at £50k per year for possibly the rest of his school life.

Well something has to change...