Help Statement query

[feynman]

Can someone please clarify if ed pyscs are supposed to state how much support a child should have. For example if the say 'child should have access to programme x' and then refuse to say how often or who should deliver it etc, then how do you get this quantified?

All parts of a statement should be clear and quantified. Have a look at chapter 8 of the sen code of practice. You can look it up online and also have a copy sent free to you if you request it by phone or online.

You could go back and ask them directly or put it in email to your case officer asking them to have statement writer revise it - either suggest the wording yourself if youknow what it should say or ask for meeting to get advice.

Hi, have requested that the ed psy specify several times, he wouldn't so I wrote what I thought in the proposed statement. The LA are now asking me to cross reference all my amendments to my reports so just wondering what to do.
Thanks

ok having had a quick look at sencop ch 8 para 8:36 and 8:37 look useful to you - link herewww.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/3724/SENCodeOfPractice.pdf

includes:"A statement should specify clearly the provision necessary to meet the needs of the child....provision should normally be quantified (eg in terms of hours of provision, staffing arrangements)although there will be some cases where some flexibility should be retained in order to meet the changing sen of the child concerned" "leas must not in any circumstances have blanket policies not to quantify provision"

If you quote that to them as the justification for having to specify some provision yourself along with copies of requests and refusals from ep, that should help. Also you might be able to search sendist site for appeal cases similar to yours for examples of provision not being specified. I think there are examples like this on ipsea or sossen sites.

You won't get the Ed Pysch to quantify support as his employers (the LA) won't let him. That's because the LA decide the quantity - not the Ed Pysch.

Stick to your guns and negoiate with the LA the quantity of support that you think is required. They will try to knock you down.

Thank-you both, is it usual for la's to tell you to cross reference all amendments you've made to your reports. I'm a little bit tempted to tell them to check themselves, since I wouldn't be doing it if they'd written a reasonable statement.

The LA will only put in Part 2 difficulties for which there is evidence in the reposrts that form the Annexes to the Statement (i.e. Ed Pych report, Community Paed report etc).

So it's worthwhile goig through each of those reports with a highlighter to pick out all the difficulties identified and ensure they are decsribed in Part 2.

Part 3 is the support required for each of the difficulties listed in Part 2 - and this is where you and the LA will differ. They wnt to provide a little (cheap( support as they can while you need to ensure support is adeqaute for each of the difficulties.

Thta's why they've asked to cross ref what you want in Part 2 with the explicit report that states the diffiulty.

Obviously no (LA employee such as Ed Pysch) will stick their neck out and say that x hours are needed in Part 3 so you need to do that yourself.

Sounds like you have the same LA as me 'cos they made me x-ref too.

Oh - and a good tack to take is to tell that Parental Advice should carry equal weight to the other Advice so if you've described it in your Parental Advice you are entitled to use it. (obviously you cannot dx).

Bugger, just cross referenced all part 3, guess I better do part 2 too! Thanks wet, why do they make it so hard!

Well have now recieved the finalised statemtment with no amendments whatsoever, however they do say in light of my requested admendments some will be made in due course?
To be fair there wasn't much time for them to change it before the statement was due to be finalised but in part that was down to when they could arrange a meeting with their lea rep. Anyway will fill int the sendist forms and see what comes next sigh!

8:32 is a useful para in this situation. If there is a dispute about evidence, the LA should state how they have resolved it.

So, if they have left out need or provision for which there is evidence, they should explain this.

I think 8:111 also says legal proceedings should be a last resort. LAs too frequently finalise without sorting out disputes so they can give you a lower level of provision while arguing out the detail.

I have just written to my LA indicating that my case was resolvable without recourse to legal proceedings if they had made their decisions in a proper manner, considering all the evidence, as they have a duty to. Should they end up giving my son the provision I've been requesting for months, I will complain to the LGO as this deliberate prevarication in the face of evidemce is maladministration.

Wet - I have learnt so much from you!!