I'm going to appeal my final statement, how shall I go about this??

[mumgoingcrazy]

I received DD2's final statement on the 12th July and have now decided that I am going to appeal, I've been umming and arring over it for the last month.

I know I've got 2 months to do this, I have received the paperwork from sendist already but what I want to know is the best way to go about this ...... and win!!

I've given up trying to get hold of ipsea, but I have been in contact with sossen, they recommended I appealed right from the start. They sent me a course date for appeal writing but it's not til mid Sept which is too late, but also the day my brother gets married to can't go anyway.

What I am appealing over is some wording in the SLT provision, and physio hasn't been quantified properly. The OT part is fine. I'd like the 1:1 wording tweaked too although I'm not too worried about this as DD2 will only be in pre-school for 1 more year and I know her 1:1 will do right by her anyway.

If anyone can point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated, I'm going into this totally blind. Many Thanks!!

Thanks Starlight, unfortunately my brother gets married the day of the course so can't go. I'll ask when the next one is and go on that.

My SLT report (which the LA have) states exactly what DD2 should get ie twice weekly for 25 minutes. The LA added in the statement 'up to' 25 minutes so need those words removed. I have the evidence for that already.

The Physio says DD2 will receive weekly therapy, but doesn't say for how long etc. Unfortunately the physio report doesn't state this either so shall I ask the Physio to rewrite her report to be more specific?

Also, we're not back to school (where she has physio) until the 6th so it's short notice for the physio so do this, how do I get around this?

I don't know how the system works, how many appeals do you do? You said the 1st doesn't have to be very detailed.

DD2 does 2 mornings ms pre-school with full 1:1 and 2 full days at sn school. I'll be applying for a sn unit attached to ms school so is the 1:1 wording still crucial when the ratio in the unit will be high? I really really hope she gets the place otherwise the alternative is ms school with 1:1 although she wouldn't cope with this at all.

Thanks

You need to ask at the school; ds3 is in a similar unit but noboidy ahs actual allocated 1-1, there are however frequently more adults than children present and any child that goes into MS school classes for example gets 1-1 as a matter of course.

Sancti, that's how this unit works too. DD2 would only need the 1:1 in her statement if she didn't get this place and ended up in ms (which I really hope doesn't happen but places are like gold dust).

Starlight, the SLT is in part 3, it says "DD2 will receive SLT directly delivered by SLT or a SLT assistant supervised by SLT. This will include a communication program devised, introduced and modelled by SLT that is delivered by the parent/trained SLT assistant. DD2 will receive individual therapy focusing on social skills/functional language skills with sessions to run twice weekly for up to 25 minutes per session. DD2's progress will be reviewed by SLT in liason with the TA, class teacher and parents on a twice yearly basis".

I'll speak to the physio when we go back to school and ask her to rewrite her report.

Re the 1:1, how should it be worded? At the moment it says "Whilst attending ms nursery DD2 will have access to 1:1 TA for a total of 2 sessions per week......" then it details what the 1:1 will be supporting.

I know the " having access to 1:1" should be changed to "DD2 will receive 1:1", but is there anything else it should say?

DD2's 1:1 is sn trained and totally brilliant for DD2, she also works part time in the unit I want DD2 to attend.

This is all really helpful thank you! I will still press on with sossen but sometimes they take so long to come back to you and I'm finding it hard finding any time to do this over the holidays with the kids to look after too.

Thanks again.

Well mumgoing, ds3 has a statement with X hours (16) in and that's the awarded hours but the palcement is considered to override this (quite rightly).

Thanks both of you, you are right I should get 'parent' removed, there's even more wrong with the statement than I 1st thought.

I hate the way they sneakily put things in and make it look like they're doing right by your child when actually they're doing the complete opposite

I'm just wondering if there's more wrong with the statement than I think (and I thought I'd gone through this with a fine tooth comb).

Thanks again