Statement question again Sorry

[Willmum]

We have a proposed statement and a meeting with the lea officer this week. As expected it is very wishy washy in terms of what is reqi=uired although surprisingly they have not put his speech and language problems in part 5 as I thought they might.
However, they have not specified how much provision he should have in terms of salt etc The NHS therapist says her direct involvment should be a least termly. Our private salt report says direct salt should on a weekly basis (with indirect support being offered by school daily).
His statement just says a programme should be put in place by salt etc etc with no mention of time etc. I onbviously wilkl challenge this but what do I ask for. Nhs and private salt recommending different levels of involment> How do I convince them that private salt is correct?

Also there is no mention at all of spd. The OT report looks like it has been totally ignored (private). She recommended weekly OT with sensory diet being put in place at school etc etc, now of this is mentioned. How do I tackle this? Is it that they are (ignoring!) less likely to follow advice in private reports?

His statement does say he will get ''Ancillary adult support to a minimum of 27.5 hours per week child support assisstance time that can be used in whole class, small group or individual basis''.

Does this mean he will have a ta full time?

Also it then syas when setting targets, the specific provision of hours of teaching/non-teaching support may be subject to adjustment in order to be flexible to the puils changing needs.

Do I need to be wary of this sentence. The cynical side of me thinks this may allow them toreduce etc his number of hours of support with formal review. Any advice here?

Thanks again and sorry for all the questions

i would be challenging quite a lot of these sentences tbh. They sound very wishy washy and unquantified. You may well find NHS SALt is giving you a resource led answer ie only writing what she is allowed to offer! You need to push for weekly SALT if this is what private report says and should also get that quantified so it says how much time will be direct therapy and how much liaison with teacher and TA. The same should also be true of the OT. The general rule is that all your son's needs must be recorded in part 2 and there should be a clear, quantified provision for each of these needs in part 3.I would also be wary of the last sentence. It needs to be clear that the TA support is for your ds and not to support your ds and five others who happen to be in the same class. As a teacher I have read many statements where a child supposedly has access to a TA when in fact the child is sharing that support with five or six other children who all have high level needs. I am sure someone else will be along to help with the correct wording of this bit.

'Does this mean he will have a ta full time?'

No. It means the class TA will 'sometimes' work with him on a 1:1 basis as is 'deemed necessary'.

There is a system in place to allow flexibility according to a pupil's needs. It is called the statement annual review, which can be called early if it is thought to be necessary. The IEP's also regulate what the TA should/could be doing.

My daughter's statement had specified in it half termly visits from SALT (after doing an official complaint to PCT).

We then had an independent SALT report which specified twice weekly visits from a SALT. We gave this to the LEA and asked for it be included in the statement. They did this and then we found a non-maintained special school outside the LA which could provide this level of input. The LEA agreed to the placement as none of their schools would provide this.

Ok, regarding the ta issue, does this mean then that really all they're saying is that the class ta will work with him somethimes (and the fact that they've stated 27.5 hrs) just means that the ta will be in the class 27.5 hrs?. If so whats the best way to challenge this? Several of the reports allude to the fact that on a one to one basis he can engage (usually) but that without he is all over the place.

Several also state that he will needs a 'trained and familar' adult i.e not a babysitter who can read his 'quirks' etc and head off problems, also as he is so hard to understand it is onportant that the person with him is consitant so he is understood etc.

How do I tackle this? What should the provision state. They have put him at band L which I believe equates to band 1.?

Thanks again

'DS will have a TA working with him on a 1:1 basis for 35 hours. This represents all hours that he attends school. The TA will support him in whole class, small groups, independent learning and 1:1 activities. The TA will be experienced in mimimising dependency whilst being available to ensure that no learning opportunity is lost.'

Will that do?

Actually give them these words then they can't argue the stupid 'dependency' argument or the one where they suggest that having a 1:1 denies him the 'whole class' learning experience.

Thank-you so much, thats brilliant. I had just typed a reply to your last message but it seems to have been lost. I just wondered what you meant about statement annual review.

My concern was that the sentence they included that said - 'when setting targets, the specific provision of hours of teaching/non-teaching support may be subject to adjustment in order to be flexible to the puils changing need'.

May allow them to change provision etc without a formal review (or more to the point without me knowing about it) therefore should it be taken out.

Or do you think that it is the annual review that they are talking about?

Many thanks once again.

No they are not.

Consider they provide NO 1:1 EVER, with that wording they are still compying with the law. i.e. they can simply say that the first day they 'observed him' and decided that he no longer needed 1:1 after all.

If there is to be flexibility, there can be 'tolerancies', i.e. between 27.5 hours a week and 35 hours a week, depending on his needs. Although the minute you do that you are guaranteeing the lower no. of hours in most cases.

The annual review of the statement is the time to change provision if it is needed. You can tell them that you have no objection to them calling an early annual review if they have evidence that your ds has made so much progress he no longer needs the support written into his current statement.

You can tell them that you understood this was the process and you believe it to be as flexible as it needs to be.

Thank you, will request that it is removed. Incidently if they refuse to specify hours/include OT recommendations etc then would you try for another meeting with them or ask them to finalise the statment then appeal?

They said if we cant get everything sorted for this meeting then I can organise another, but I beleive that if more than one meeting is requested they no longer have to meet the 26 weeks?

They allocated one hour for this meeting. I'm worried we may need more time which will mean we have to have another hence delaying everything again.

No. Never do more than one meeting. An hour shows you they aren't serious anyway.

The purpose of this meeting is for THEM to show the tribunal that they have attempted to resolve things with you but not been able to. It shows legitimate use of the tribunal panels time. They are probably not even going to prepare for the meeting. It it 'probably' (although you never know) just a tick box, so on that basis try not to go into it too emotionally involved.

Just tick your box as well iyswim.

SALT should be in Part 2 as well as 3. If not challenge the LEA on this.

Infact I would challenge this whole statement that you have received because the provision offered does not seem to be either specified or quantified as required by law. What you've been given statement wise is a big pile of pants with no full time TA being guaranteed.

Run Parts 2 and 3 past an independent organisation and not Parent Partnership (e.g IPSEA, ACE, SOS;SEN to name but three) and they will tell you what it should say. Parts 2 and 3 are the most important parts of this document so it is vitally important that they are right in terms of content and wording.

Here is some useful wording our tribunal put in their decision:

"Turning to Part 3 we reminded ourselves that pursuant to COP 8.36 and 8.37 the provision in part 3 is required to be specific, detailed and quantified. In L v Clarke and Somerset (1998) ELR 129 it was held that ?the real question is whether the (statement) is so specific and so clear as to leave no room for doubt as to what has been decided and what is needed in an individual case."

SALT should specify hours of direct and indirect SALT (indirect would be time working with the TA) and frequency.

What we did was get an emailed version of the draft statement and then amended it with our preferences in a different colour or in bold. If you go to tribunal you have to do this as part of a working document. This way they SEN officer had to justify why had not accepted our wording.

The teaching / non teaching time could mean they spend several hours a week in meetings, writing up notes or preparing materials and not actually working with your child at all. You need to make it clear that 27.5 or 35 hours should be spent in direct supervision of your child 1:1 in small or large groups etc - and preparation etc is extra

NHS SALT never commit themselves to regular visits - put what the private SALT says and work down. Has the private SALT clarified how much indirect SALT is needed?

Also look at Lamb report. Flexibility should be there for the benefit of the child not for the benefit of the staff.

Also don't leave it as ancillary adult support - put in any specific training eg Makaton, PECS, autism etc that will be necessary so might say TA experienced with working with a child with autism who is trained in x and y.

You don't need to convince them - just amend the document with your changes and send it back with your private reports saying you don't agree the draft. You could quote the wording above. We then got an amended draft statement sent to us with some bits changed (corrections of factual issues) and others not (any additional provision we suggested!) and we took it from there.

I always considered any draft as a working document to which I was as entitled to put my wording as they were.

Thanks again, I did typ e another post earlier, but it seems to have dissapeared. Thats two tonight, is anyone else having problems?

Any way, just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their advice. I'm going through it all now and beginning to realised just how rubbish the statement really is.

Will try not to get too wound up when they come. I have rung IPSEA and talked to them about the statement but to be honest, I didn't think they were that helpful.

The lady I spoke to, whilst very giving with her time didn't really say anything other than what I already knew- ie salt should be quantified. I read the part about ta support and she just said it's good he's got so much time. I did read word for word what I posted here.

Are any of the other organisations likley to be of much help or was I a little unlucky? Alos I don't think its been mentioned but does anyone know of a website/similar where you can see examples of good/badly written statements? If not maybe we should start one lol. I think there is more knowledge on here then anywhere else I've seen!

Thanks again

SOSSEN are my charity of choice because they are nit-picky to the death. Some people find themselves a bit overwhelmed by their battle cries however but they are also extremely efficient and effective. You could try them?

There is also ACE and most National Organisations for each disability have an education help-line service.

Willmum I agree with you about the website where you can see examples of good/badly written statements. Would be good to tie it to local authorities because so often at meetings, they say thing like, 'But in this LA we don't do things like that.' etc. Was thinking of doing one after the tribunal.

Sounds like a good idea tryingtokeepintune, maybe we should all get together and start one! And thanks again startingafresh, I'll try ringing sossen tomorrow x

Willmum - try googling the SOS!SEN website. If I remember correctly, they are running some workshops dealing with statements etc. soon.

SOSSEN is fantastic. They were relatively easy to get hold of, and provided detailed assistance to me, and still are.

I am preparing to submit my appeal

Have rung sossen and the lady was very helpful. I'm still a little confused as she also said if we think we will need to appeal then not to be too specific in terms of what we want changing.

The reason for this was that she said its quite common for lea's to 'improve the statement a bit' so that they look like they've made the effort at a tribunal. She also said that the worse the statement was the more chance there was of winning at appeal so if may not be helpful to get them to change it so it's a bit better if we then go on to appeal.

She also said she would be wary of a meeting and would insist on an agenda upfront and it being minuted. I explained the sen officer is coming to my house and I have not spoken to them get at all so there is no agenda (although I have got my mum coming to take notes.)

She suggested maybe emailing them with an agenda of what I want to talk about but I'm now wondering whether I should cancel the meeting and write to them asking them to amend the draft to reflect the advice in the reports and to make it more specific, without being specfic myself?

Arghh! it's so easy to do the wrong thing isn't it!

Thanks electra, have spent all night going round in circles with this. Still don't know whats best, think I'm ringing tomorrow to cancel meeting. I think talking to others in my area would be great but I've no idea how to do so? I don't really know anyone in my area with kids with sen who have been to a tribunal.
Thanks

Ok, have been convinced by my mum to allow the meeting to go ahead. (She feels it would be wrong to cancel now as it's been planned etc), and she thinks we should listen to what they have to stay.
She's coming to take notes etc and I will be very careful not to agree to anything. I intend to say where I think it needs amending but try not to say too much about what I want it to say (with a mind on possible tribunal). I at least now feel confident in how to approach this and feel fairly sure that I won't do or say anything silly.

Thanks everyone, will let you know how it goes.