DS2's school have done an about-turn since the specialist adhd nurse classroom in September and my application for SA (totally predictable but still 
).
When DS2's IEP was partially reviewed at the end of year 2 (July 2013) it was full of comments relating to lack of eye contact, high distractibility, making strange noises, becoming increasing tactile, not responding to his name, not following instructions etc. As teaching staff did not know what to do different at the start of class 3, the targets and provision remained the same. This IEP was partially reviewed again in October. Again the targets and provision remained the same but the July 'progress' comments were listed as current behaviours and there were new 'progress' comments that directly contradicted previous observations (ie July - doesn't make eye contact; October - makes good eye contact) - or minimised the severity of distractibility and how much educational impact this has.
Two weeks later a new IEP has now been issued, amending targets and provision, with the 'progress' comments on the IEP reviewed on 24th October now being listed as 'current behaviour'. The observations of July that were consistent with ADHD/ASD have therefore disappeared and been replaced by observations that all is well. Targets that were not met have been deleted or increased. For example, he had a target to attend for five minutes. He is observed to have a 30 second attention span. Target increased to 7 minutes. Also, the new IEP has removed reference to his being identified as having SLCN (narrative delay of nearly half chronological age) by a specialist SALT teacher who came into the school to train the class TA to use the resources she had supplied. A new target was added to his IEP in Spring 2013 but has now been deleted - to make way for a new target on 'taking responsibility'.
When talking to the specialist nurse the CT identified problems with poor attention span, inability to focus, constant distractibility, frequent movement from chair, constant noise making in the form of whistling, twittering and commenting on what he is doing, can answer direct questions although not appearing to be listening, struggles to structure ideas, unable to participate successfully in group work, plays alongside peers with little eye contact or verbal interchange. This is not reflected in his IEP and even when I have asked her direct she has lied to me and said 'oh, no, he always responds to his name' etc. The school have totally omitted all mention of the visit by the specialist nurse. It is as if it did not happen. I spoke to the senco the day before I received the new IEP. This new IEP was allegedly to take account of this visit and to reflect an awareness of his advanced position of the ADHD/ASD multi-disciplinary diagnostic pathway.
Whilst the senco/head was asking to see my submission (yeah, right) and claiming that he would do all that he could to support application for SA, I mentioned that I imagined the LA would want to know how it had been possible for DS2 to score 2c for Speaking and Listening at KS1 sats in May in light of recent evidence. DS2's CT said at parents' evening that this was the assessment of another teacher and that she would not assess him at that level. On the current IEP, however, he is assessed again at level 2c.
The senco/head response appears to be to ignore recent evidence and stick to what he said (levels filed with LEA) previously and to further make the current written record match his fabricated version of reality. I cannot believe that this could be argued to be in the best interests of the child. I know that this is what (some bad) schools do all the time but they have done so within a such a short space of time and are now directly contradicting all that they have said and done in the past and all external observations. Do you think that I have a case to complain?
DH is on the BOG. As the head is also the Senco we can use some section to raise it with the board.
I think this is motivated by two things - not wanting to fund provision, and not wanting the spotlight training on possibly insecure teacher assessed KS1 SATs. The CT said DS2 needs a statement to get more support. The LA say not true - use the devolved budget. If this is not sufficient, DC on SA+ or going through SA are entitled to the same top up funding as DC with a statement. The Senco has previously said the school cannot afford another statemented child as they would be forced to fund provision. I know there will be no direct consequence for DS2 but this behaviour has to be challenged. Can I also challenge the security of teacher KS1 assessments - maybe with the LEA or the testing agency?
To summarise 
...Until the start of the academic year, when it became clear following observations by SALT and the adhd clinic that the primary need related to attention, that it was severe and had persisted and was likely to persist (ie would cost), the school were the driving force behind all requests for assessment (over 2 years with SALT, OT, EP and recommended paed referral) but have since been backtracking.
I want to complain because there is clear evidence of rapid backtracking as soon as the child's needs became apparent and parents applied for SA. It is inconceivable that this was not a deliberate action or is in the needs of the child. In addition, SA now for ADHD/ASD with severe educational impact is inconsistent with previously filed SATs levels.
Sorry for the essay
TIA