Academies - This is the annexe, that I was concerned about

[moosemama]

Apologies again for the hijack of JK2010's thread earlier.

I have been perusing the http://www.education.gov.uk/academies/supporting-documents DfE's website about Academies again and below have quoted the annexe that has me worried about SEN admissions to academies. I know this has been discussed before, so again, apologies if I am going over old ground.

Is it just me? Or is it worded far too loosely, in favour of Academies that don't want SEN pupils on their roll?

It sounds to me like Academies will find it easy to get out of accepting even Statemented SEN pupils.

By the way, I am willing to accept that I might just be being paranoid, especially as I have had no sleep after being up with a puking child all night.

The sections below are quoted from the Annex C to FA - SEN05-08-10 V2 from the DfE website ...

5. The Academy Trust must ensure that pupils with SEN are admitted on an equal basis with others in accordance with its admissions policy.

(The problem here is that Academies will be allowed to set their own admissions policies for which, they will not be answerable to the LEA.)

6. Where a local authority (?LA?) proposes to name the Academy in a statement of SEN made in accordance with section 324 of the Education Act 1996, it must give the Academy Trust written notice that it so proposes. Within 15 days of receipt of the LA?s notice that it proposes to name the Academy in a statement, the Academy Trust must consent to being named, except where admitting the child would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for other children; and where no reasonable steps may be made to secure compatibility. In deciding whether a child?s inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children, the Academy Trust must have regard to the relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State to maintained schools.

(I read this from the point of view of my own ds, who has AS, has recently developed severe school related anxiety and as a result has had lots of episodes of crying and/or melt-downs at school. For me it seems it would be simple for a high-achieving school to simply roll out the 'old chestnut' that a child with social/communication difficulties - such as ds, would takes the teachers' time and attention to deal with 'outbursts' and would therefore be 'incompatible to the efficient education of other children'.)

7. If the Academy Trust determines that admitting the child would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education, it must, within 15 days of receipt of the LA?s notice, notify the LA in writing that it does not agree that the Academy should be named in the pupil?s statement. Such notice must set out all the facts and matters the Academy relies upon in support of its contention that: (a) admitting the child would be incompatible with efficiently educating other children; and (b) the Academy Trust cannot take reasonable steps to secure this compatibility.

8. After service by the Academy Trust on the LA of any notice (further to paragraph 6 above) stating that it does not agree with the LA?s proposal that the Academy be named, the Academy Trust must seek to establish from the LA, as soon as is reasonably practicable, whether or not the LA agrees with the Academy Trust. If the LA notifies the Academy that it does not agree with the Academy Trust?s response, and names the Academy in the child?s statement, the Academy Trust must admit the child to the school on the date specified in the statement or on the date specified by the LA.

(I think I got this bit wrong earlier - it seems the LA can name an Academy in a Statement even if the Academy objects and the Academy has to take them - BUT ...

9. Where the Academy Trust consider that the Academy should not have been named in a child?s statement, they may ask the Secretary of State to determine that the LA has acted unreasonably in naming the Academy and to make an order directing the LA to reconsider.

10. The Secretary of State?s determination shall, subject only to any right of appeal which any parent or guardian of the child may have to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), be final.

11. If a parent or guardian of a child in respect of whom a statement is maintained by the local authority appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) either against the naming of the Academy in the child?s SEN statement or asking the Tribunal to name the Academy, then the decision of the Tribunal on any such appeal shall be binding and shall, if different from that of the Secretary of State under paragraph 9 above, be substituted for the Secretary of State?s decision.

12. Where the Academy, the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) have determined that it should be named, the Academy Trust shall admit the child to the Academy notwithstanding any provision of Annex B to this agreement.

So that's about the size of it. Does all the rest of this stuff mean that if we disagree with their refusal to take ds it is going to be even harder than it is now to get him into the school of our choice?

My brain hurts now. Why can't they just write it all in plain English - or is it just me.

Ahem - OK, just me then? I obviously need more sleep.

As you were ladies.

post on the primary education board. There are some very knowledgeable teachers on it who may know more...

Thanks IndigoBell.

I don't really like posting about SEN issues outside of the SEN board - especially not in light of some of the recent threads on MN. [big Moosey coward emoticon]

It's very confusing. I've read it through twice now and still can't work it out.

But the "incompatible with the efficient education of others" is exactly the same rule as for all state schools. The reasonable steps point is also the same. Reasonable steps is of course a loose term, but could include a separate room for quiet time, or even for working on tasks separately from other kids (eg my ASD boy has a corridor desk).

I am no expert, and don't claim to know all the in's and out's, but I did recently write to the Sec of state for Education (Michael Gove) on this point, and he wrote back explaining pretty much that SEN kids' rights are as good in Academies as in other schools.

So unless I am missing something/being naive, I think they are in same position as in a "normal" school.

That's reassuring sickofsocalledexperts.

I'll be honest and say I haven't actually read the rules for non-SEN pupils. I should make an effort to do that I suppose.

I get that the SEN pupils' rights are the same once they are actually being educated in an Academy, but I'm still not convinced that they are equally as likely to be accepted by a school once its gained Academy status, as they would have done while it was under LEA control.

Like I said though, I could just be being paranoid. I don't think the comments from the Head teacher of the school I'm talking about - about lowering their oversubscribed intake by eliminating 'those pupils not suited to our school' - helped though.

The letter I got said that as long as the academy is named in part 4 of the statement, the academy has to take the child. Since statements are done via the lea, might they not find it funny to name academies in part 4 and pass all sen kids to the academies, which they probably hate? But I agree with your overall suspicion - that they will find sneaky ways of de-selecting sn kids. If you need, I have used an excellent advocate called fiona slomovic, who charmingly but firmly reminds schools and leas of their legal obligations!

Thanks sickofsocalledexperts.

Ds doesn't have a statement as yet and I have a gut feeling he is unlikely to get one in the end, so it will be more a case of them being aware he is on SA+ and what extra provision/support the primary have provided and making (or not making) their offer based on that.

On reading their most recent OFSTED report today, it seems they already have a significantly lower number of SEN pupils than the national average.

I also discovered today, that despite having around 60 children on the SEN Register, our primary only has one pupil who has a statement. Which is also suspicious and does kind of back up what I've been told about our LEA not being keen on giving statements.

I would get fiona on board - there was a thread on here recently which said that leas now play a numbers game, and only even consider statements when a lawyer is involved. She is not expensive as is an advocate, not a solicitor. Even an hr on the fone, or a letter drafted by her, is a shot across their bows. with as and school phobia, you cd build a strong case. Gd luck!

Well I know a person ('friend') who has just been approved to open his academy....My daughter potentially will have some learning difficulties which I mentioned to him.....he told me today that they will not be able to acommodate DD (2.7) at his school as they will not have the resources for SN

So today we got excluded from a school that does not even exist yet! I was gobsmacked! I was not sure about it anyway as there is so much to consider before Sept 2012...!

I am so upset about it - I mean we are worried enough but he did not have to be so blunt - I know I am going to have to grow some thick skin but not just yet.....

spur, I am so sorry to hear that. Its always such a shock when you realise your 'friends' just don't 'get it'. We have been through a similar thing this week, only with a very close family member who also has an ASD child, but is in complete denial about it.

Daft as it may sound, I am still clinging to the vain (and tiny) hope that things will change/improve in the next couple of years. I know being an ostrich isn't the right thing to do, but its hard enough dealing with the here and now sometimes when you have a child with sn, without having to fortune tell about what will/might happen in the future.

I know so much more now than I did say, twelve months ago though. Partly due to my research, but mostly due to the lovely, lovely people on here. You never know, by the time your dd is of school age, you quite possibly will have found the perfect place for her at a school that will really value and nurture her.

As my Mum says, keep visualising it and it will happen. (She's big on cosmic ordering. )

thank you - fell better already.

I have been so wobbly all day - feeling a bit sick about it all.....not really sure why....very silly

You mum sounds cool...I will start visualising now!

Anyway have to run and cook dinner for dh will check in again.

Hi Moosemama,

re your comment:-

"Ds doesn't have a statement as yet and I have a gut feeling he is unlikely to get one in the end, so it will be more a case of them being aware he is on SA+ and what extra provision/support the primary have provided and making (or not making) their offer based on that".

Moosemama,

You won't know that for definate re your first sentence unless you apply for one. If you get turned down you appeal their crass decision. Simples!.

You are your child's best - and only - advocate here. No-one else is in a better position than you are to fight his corner for him. Also no-one else will fight his corner for him.

SA plus is honestly not worth the paper its written on. Your son does not have to perhaps languish on SA plus for years before you seek a statement.

Acting the ostrich will not help either you or your son here with regards to his additional support needs. You need to really get your head out of the sand here because delay will do you and him no favours at all.

Moosemama

What I write may sound blunt but my son is now at secondary school (he has a statement and I am happy with the progress he has made). I was refused twice by an LEA in a county that IPSEA knows well due to the number of complaints it receives!.

I have seen a number of his peers actually failed by a system that is supposed to bloody well help them!. I sincerely do not want your son to potentially suffer the same fate as they have.

No Attila, he's not languishing on SA+, we are just about to start the process. The intention was to do it in the summer break, but things have been more than a little fraught round here for the past few weeks, so we haven't managed it yet. We have been too busy 'fighting fires' as it were.

Believe me, I have spent practically all my waking hours over the past few weeks fighting for my son. I have typed countless reports and briefing notes, filled in endless forms. spoken to every professional I could find who would listen - and even some who didn't want to and bypassed the school and taken matters into my own hands (something I know is going to make me extremely unpopular, but had to be done).

I get it, I really do.

What I was saying was, that if I'm right and we do eventually lose, taking into account appeals etc, the secondary school will still have access to his records from primary school and may still judge him to be one of 'those pupils not suited to our school' based on those records alone.

I do understand that your posts come from a place of caring Attila.

Rest assured we are on the case. I will not allow them to fail my son, he will get the support he needs and is entitled to, I will make sure of it.

Good:). I honestly do not want your son to be failed either; I have personally seen too many children failed by schools and Sencos who see that job as a part time position.

If your son is at school and seeing professional people (for example a SALT, a dev paed infact anyone in such a capacity) then he should be on SA plus in any event. SA plus is not a process you should actually start. School should have him on SA plus (an IEP should be done termly with you present, it certainly should not be handed to you completed and without any imput from you) and on their SEN register.

You are truly your child's best - and only - advocate here. Always remember that.

He was only on SA Attila, the school seemed to be stonewalling and not giving him the support he needs - no outside professionals had been contacted by the school. So, I lost patience and rang A LOT of different professionals directly for advice.

All of them told me exactly the same thing and exactly what help he could/should be getting.

The school basically barefaced lied to me and said they couldn't call in the professionals until he had completely his multi-dip assessment (which is not even expected to begin until April 2011). They didn't know that I had already spoken to senior people at the assessment unit and other services and 'knew' they were lying. So on the advice of the other professionals I spoke to, I circumvented the school completely, and got him referred via the medical route to several services that the school should already have brought in.

We have been involved in his IEP meetings and reviews, but things have changed with ds now and they seemed to want to watch and wait rather than actually do anything to help. There was no way I was standing for that. As soon as I knew what help he could/should be getting, I made sure that he will get it.

Like I said, its been a tough few weeks, but we are making progress now.

Next stop SA.

God Moosemama, are this school or are this school a complete bunch of tossers!.

I'd seriously be looking at other schools in your area if school are acting like this.

How have the IEP meetings been?

I hope you do make some headway here with this sorry shower.

Moving him isn't an option for lots of reasons, unfortunately.

The IEP meetings were ok, we did get heard and we were happy with his targets for fine motor skills and self-management/organisation, but apparently they didn't have a clue how to help him with his social and communication issues. The SENCO has retired now and the Head is acting SENCO for the time being. Its him that was being obstructive about getting in external professionals, even though it was obvious that things were getting worse rather than better for ds and more needed to be done. Not exactly sure why he was so anti, its either financial or because he has too much on his plate and didn't want the extra work. If its the latter, he may be pleased that I've taken the referral out of his hands, at least he won't have to fill out all the paperwork now!

I don't really get why things have been so bad for ds. I know of other parents who have dc on the SEN register there and they have been very happy with the support they've received. In fact my own ds2 was on the register for 12 months, after severe illness caused him to slip back and they were brilliant with him. They had completely turned him around within 6 months and were keen to keep him on the register for as long as possible, to make sure he was reaching his potential, rather than just catching up with the lowest achieving group in his class iyswim. By the end of the 12 months he had gone from the lowest achieving child in the class to sitting comfortably at the top end of the middle table.

Then again, they didn't need to call in any external help or 'pay' for anything to help ds2. He was basically given plenty of extra time working with the TAs and in small support groups.

They just don't seem to get how bad things are for ds1. I think its because his achievement level has remained high and - until recently, he kept everything locked inside at school, then let it all out when he got home. I think they honestly believed it was me making a fuss about nothing.

The only good thing is that his teachers this year seem very experienced and switched on. They picked up on his struggles straight away and are doing lots of little things to help him already. He has been in a bad way recently, but we have noticed that on the days he has one of his teachers in particular, he always seems to have a 'good day' and come home happy - so at least that's something.

I am quietly optimistic that things are moving in the right direction now. It helps having the phone-numbers of the people that pull the strings and make the decisions. Especially when they too have been appalled at the school and seem very much on side. (Sceptic in me says not to completely trust them, but a couple of them have already proved their worth.)