Help needed with Amelia's proposed statement please!!

[Dingle]

My DD is 5 and has Down Syndrome, started mainstream in September!!

After LEA refused to assesss her last Summer, I appealled but the day before our case was given to the Tribunal Services the LEA backed down. At the end of Feb, the LEA decided that her needs would be best met at a MLD school and gave her 15 hours on a propsed statement.

For the time being- I want her to continue at MS school, where she has settled in well, considering the very little support she has been getting. (20mins 4x a week with an LSA outside classroom) Outside of this support, no-one is signing with her/understands her way of learning/ or has had any training on managing a child with DS. Taking all that into consideration, I am impressed she has made any progress at all and feel I want to give her a fair go at MS with the appropriate support in place.

Waffle over- here's where I need help! I don't really have a clue what should/shouldn't be on her proposed statement. I am requesting that she stays at MS with 25 if not 30 hours support but therapies etc seem very vague and not clearly stated how often and who they will be provided by.

Is anyone around that can give me a few pointers. PLEASE!!! I want to aim high, they have wasted so much of her precious time already.

Any help would be much appreciated. TIA.

Dingle.XX

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I have spoken to the LEA and expressed that I want to give keep her at mainstream ATM but felt that she would need 25+ hours to give her the best chance possible. The LEA acknowledged this and said that I need to put this in writing when I comment about the proposed statement and that it shouldn't need to go to appeal/tribunal!
I don't feel the school choice is the issue at the moment, it's mainly getting the wording and levels of support/therapy as strong as I can.
For example: Should it say how often she has SALT, and who delivers it?

Hi Dingle,

Re your comment:-
"therapies etc seem very vague and not clearly stated how often and who they will be provided by".

Your bloody LEA are playing silly buggers yet again. They know that all provision must be clearly quantified by law. If provision is not quantified then its not worth the paper its written on. It certainly should say how often she has Salt for instance.

You may be fortunate and get SALT provision in Part 2. I'd try for that as well.

Parts 2 and 3 are vital to get right because once that statement is finalised its the devils own job to get any of it altered.

Certainly try to call IPSEA again asap - I've always had good results either phoning them late morning or just after 2pm.

Attila, I have put a few more details of the content on a thread in SN section.

Just emailed IPSEA again as I have had no reply and I am nearing our deadline.