What was your path from a 'weak' proposed statement to a robust final statement ?

[Toppy]

I am in the middle of the Statementing process for DS, 3, ASD and in a very short space of time (placed Request in Dec and am awaiting Proposed if we get one) have wised up quite quickly but only to the stages I have been through.
for example I now have copies of all the various professionals' reports and whilst I felt we have all worked together I suddenly realised on reading them that based on their input we are definitely not going to get the output in terms of Statement provision I feel my son needs.
So I really wished I had sought independent reports for input into the process prior to a proposed statement. A couple of other mothers advised me of this but I though they were being cynical or that their issues were going to be different to mine.

I now suspect we will have to challenge the Statement, seek legal advice and get the independent evidence lined up on which to cross reference our amendments to.
Do any of you have any tips or advice about anything I should bear in mind, put in place or take on board ? I am not really sure what the next stage of the process is and just would love to hear any of your experiences in the hope of avoiding common pitfalls

How do you get from a weak to a robust Statement ?

i just called the lea and discussed my concerns with the assigned officer. i explained why i thought it was weak (language - lack of specificity) and why i felt that slt etc needed to be included and specified, and explained exactly what i thought it should say and how it should be phrased.

i also made a few mentions of health and safety of both my daughter and her peers with regard to supervision.

four days later it landed on my doormat exactly as i had requested.

job done.

Well we did not get reports until after the final statement and then just an EP report. In fact we should not have needed any reports as the reports they had agreed with us, but the LEA just ignored them.

There is a good guide on ACE about how to check a statement.

We got an email version of proposed and crossed out all the bits we did not like with strikethrough, put our amendments and sent it back with a letter explaining why we felt it was wrong. Our SEN officer never really listened on the phone / face to face. She did change some bits but only the insignificant stuff nothing that helped us on placement - we then got a second proposed statement. Fundamentally she did not want to spend the money and only cherry picked the bits of the reports that helped her (1%) and ignored the bits that didn't (99%) including all the way to tribunal insisting my son had no behavioural problems as a result of his autism at all - despite reports stating he pushed other children forcefully in the face when they approached.

It really depends what you are arguing over. If its something they will negotiate on then they won't take you to tribunal on making something specific. If what you want costs 10 times more than their provision then you may as well throw the reports out the window as they will only pick out the bits they want to.

You can probably do most if not all of any appeal yourself. But using an advocate eg Fiona Slomovic just to check stuff over can be money well spent especially if you are asking for expensive provision. IPSEA and NAS will check stuff for free

Blimey madwomanintheattic my contact at the LA knows that I know the sen code of practice, where to get help, IPSEA etc and yet the other day she told me that they have a blanket policy not not specify or quantify SALT / OT - just hours of 1:1

They are also now a few weeks late getting the proposed statement according the time-scales. I can complain apparently.

I'm quite worried too OP. How important is it for you? My DS (3 with ASD) will hopefully be going to a special school in September which would make whatever bobbins I'm presented with immaterial but if he doesn't get a place then the statement will have to be decent.

A couple of resources here about checking the draft one:

www.sossen.org.uk/reports/Check_statement.pdf

www.ace-ed.org.uk/Resources/ACE/advice%20booklets/Getting-Statement-Right-Nov09LR.pdf

i was quite surprised too.

Sure, our LA bods know I know the CoP inside out, have been to tribunal, have working knowledge of a decent amount of case law but still sat in the statement review and informed us and the school that they just don't specify TA hours any more.

Really. Your knowledge of the law makes no difference to them because ultimately there is no policing of it. Only the tribunal system, which they use to their advantage to ration provision.

Yeah sorry. But you might as well know the context within which you are working. Then you won't have to deal with the outrage and disappointment when you find this out yourself.

it depends on what you need form your statement.

dd1's statement, as you read ti thorugh, is piss weak. still full of the wishy washy non-defined, non-quantified language that we all expect form LAs.

but, then you get to part 4, and it names the right school.

so, the rest doesn't matter (for us, in our situation), as we know that whatever the statement says, dd1's school are going to do more anyway, go the extra mile, and do it in dd1's best interests.

we were in the middle of taking LA to tribunal when they offerd to name her current school.

we dropped the tribunal case, as it did not matter anymore what the rest of the statement said - we trust the school to know more about what dd1 needs than the LA/EP (private and nhs)/SALT/OT etc. after all, they see her everyday.

so, ime, it depends on what you are looking for.

we could have continud to ribunal to get all the services quantified, as we all know they shoudl be, but if we did, we of course risked losing what we had gained (ther eis no guarantee the tribunal woudl have ruled for dd1's current school)

what do you want from your statement? are you wanitng the ASD nursery to be named?

Silverfrog - point taken about your individual situation. My local authority have a written (gasp!) policy of not specifying/quantifying any statements for children in special school / specialist provision, despite this being contrary to the Code of Practice.

There is provision for flexibility following case law, but that must be to the advantage of the child, not LA/ school. There is no excuse for not specifiying.

The rumour going around here is that all children at the local special school have been 're-banded' and are now getting less provision than at last statement. It would seem no parent has challenged this in the past, and so the LA can get away with it now..

Always challenge

oh, if dd1 was not in the school she is in (private SN school, very small, totally committed to getting whatever services are necessary for the individual pupil) I owuld have challenged it, absolutely.

if dd1 had been in a state SN school I would have challenged it.

but it does dpeend very much on the situation.

eg for SALT, for instance. I think the OP has her ds in a nursery which provides SALT in every session, totally integrated. if she is wanting the statement ot name this nursery, then pushing for quantified SALT woudl probably be meaningless - he is goign ot get more out of the SALT provided in the in-house sessions and integration (small classes, qualified SALT always part of the session) then he will ever get from "twice termly individual session, with a programme to be delivered each session for 10 mins at a time" or similar.

silverfrog I'm confused about the placement bit. If I get a rubbish statement, leave it, name the special school and they agree it's fine as you say. If they don't agree and want him in MS can I challenge the final statement?

I have been told that since DS has had a clear dx and has been attending a joint MS / special pre-school placement for a year we have every chance. Also the special school is the nearest one to where we live, we've visited and it was full of children just like DS. But I don't want to rely on that IYSWIM?

Sorry for hijack OP but hope this may be useful for you too

at Hiswife and Leonie r.e LA. I couldn't sleep at night if that was my job.

If he gets a school named on his statmenet that provides weekly direct SALT, then there is no need to insist that his statement states weekly direct salt.

However, if the school named DOESN'T automatically provide weekly salt, then you'll have to insist it is written in.

In general, it is good practice to get all provision written in regardless of the school but the effort you might have to go to to get it written down when he'll get it anyway just might not be worth it, and ultimately, if you end up at tribunal, might bring the placement into question too.

There is, always, a small risk (VERY SMALL I'd say) that if the provision isn't written into the statment then when it comes to review, they might suggest that since it doesn't say that he needs weekly SALT then it is wasteful of resources that he attends a school with weekly SALT. BUT, if he is already there by then, his chances of a tribunal agreeing to him coming out are incredibly small, not least because the school will most likely back you at that point.

Flamin: we went through Statementing always pointing out the LA's errors, and re-writing bits etc.

it made little difference (), and they issued the statement they wanted to issue (draft stage), leaving the school name blank, as always.

we rewrote listed what we wanted included/changed, and submitted, along with which school we wanted.

LA ignored the lot, and sent back the draft (now final) with a school we didn't want named (actually the pre-school that I htink the OP has her ds at, coincidentally )

in order to move to tribunal, we had to accept this final statemtn (you need a statement to appeal, iyswim)

so, we accepted it, piss weak and with the wrong school named.

we already knew the school we wanted would accept dd1 (had been in talks wiht them), so knew there was a place waiting for her.

so, we filed Tribunal docs (with help of solicitors), and off went all our submissions on why the statemtn was shockingly poor, what school we wanted etc.

LA settled before tribunal, and agreed to name the school, but not to making any of the changes we wanted (we had a watertight, absolutely pinned down quantificaiton of OT, SALT, Snesory Integration etc) - I suspect the LA thought we would still push for all this provsion, but haivng already talke dot the private SN school, we knew that this was all included int he (high) price which the LA was objecting to initially.

so, we kept the crappy statemnt, and sent dd1 to the named school - win-win

hth

yes, HisWife: we do face the risk of "hmm, but ABA is not written inot her statement, so why should she have it?"

but she woudl have been there for 2.5 years by next AR, and ther eis always the risk that an LA is goign to pull ABA anyway.

you are correct, but as wiht most things in the SN world - it's a case of the least disruptive gamble at the time, iyswim?

as you say, Tribunals take a dim view of movign an ASD child "just becuase", if they are settled and otherwise making progress.

there is always the argument of "why did the LA ever name that provision if it is so unsuitbale" - ie, you didnt know what oyu were talking about then, so why woudl anythign have changed [and school says child should stay, and profs reports etc]"

Ah, thanks. Need to think about that. At least the DLA is sorted until 2014 so I can concentrate on this

Wow - thank you everybody for all of your responses. Some of you have raised the key question I am struggling with at the moment... what is our end goal?

I could be really naive here but I hope we are going to be offered the in-borough SS which I would be very happy with.
DS is thriving at his specialist nursery but I have to stay down there all morning with my DD as it is too far to come home again so if we wanted him to stay there we'd have to fight for both transport and the private nursery. Being realistic rather than defeatist there is no way in the world we would ever get that when there is an excellent provision with the borough.

So my current stance is that even if we get the great local SS I still want a robust statement.
Current SALT report that feeds into the statement suggests 'up to 3 hours of direct SALT a term'. Having seen other children's statements (who attend the same private nursery) with provisions of 1 - 2.5 hours a week, I will not be happy unless we have something more along those lines for DS written in black and white even if he gets more than that at the local SS where it is embedded in the curriculum.
This is to protect him against cuts, school closures, moving etc etc.

The question for me now is how far do we fight and at what point do we compromise. I think once you start spending money to get the provision in when you are likely to get it anyway at the placement you have to weigh up how much private provision you could have paid for with that 'fight money'. This may be the case with OT for us. We are still waiting for the NHS OT assessment and as such there is no input into the Statement so therefore there'll be no provision in the proposed Statement. The placement we want has a full time OT but I don't know whether all children there get the OT or just the ones who have it in their statement.

Discodad - your post has made me feel a bit sick: a written policy of not specifying/quantifying any statements for children in special school/specialist provision?! Outrageous.
That is the sort of info that would be so useful to have on my LA but as I hang out with other SN mothers in Surrey, none of whom are from my borough, I do not have access to this sort of info yet and would hate to find something like that out much further down the line.

FlaminGreatGallah - looks like you are in a very similar situation to me with the same sorts of questions so no worries about any hijack ! How far through the process are you? I'm hoping to get a Proposed Statement in a months time, just in time for the big shutdown over Easter. Convenient huh

Silverfrog - your last post was exactly what I was looking for (albeit without the robust statement bit) - a summary of the steps you went through to get what you wanted and what the outcome was. One thing I can't quite get my head around.... do you have to agree to a final statement in order to appeal it?
I assumed we'd get a draft, not be happy with it and try and negotiate over terms (using a lawyer and independent reports). At what point do these negotiations have to come to an end and the proposed become final before you appeal (I have not worded that very well). Is it a time thing or a number of 'goes' thing. I should phone a helpline for this info I know but you guys are SO helpful

If they name a school you are happy with then you can put them in that school from the date of the final statement but in theory you could still appeal part 2 and 3 until they were specific enough. I would really really hope that no LA would take you to tribunal just over specifying hours of SALT in a special school etc. You would seriously hope they would be laughed out of the tribunal room. But as with all things sometimes you have to appeal so they know you will take it all the way and then they will cave in.

SOSSEN had something on their website about a new trick with SS statements not to specify OT, SALT etc and as the parent thinks well no worries I trust the school to provide it the parent does not challenge part 2 and 3 as part 4 is fine. Then at next AR the LEA say well your child does not need SALT or OT anymore so can go to mainstream. Parents say of course needs SALT and physio and LEA say well you didn't challenge it and its not in the statement you agreed. I have not heard anything like this personally but I trust SOSSEN to tell the truth on stuff.

So always be specific unless eg you are in ABA school or similar where you know they will do the right thing and not dependent on LA funding.

The NHS will be cutting SALT services so you need to protect it.

Agnes - that is really really helpful. Really helpful !
I feel like an expert on the bits I have done yet totally ignorant of what happens/might happen next and you have just laid it out for me.
Did I say how helpful your post was?

Toppy,

Write to the NHS OT saying that you need an urgent OT assessment as you are applying for a statement.

Get a letter (evidence) from them that they will not be coming.

Get a private one done.

After you appeal the NHS one will come calling. Tell them no thanks, it's done! We tried to get you in but it's too late and my child has been assessed enough. There is no point in your assessment now except to fight us at tribunal which is not the purpose of these things. Put THIS in writing to them.

The statement will have to say whatever your private OT says.

HisWife - brilliant advice. Thank you so much

Toppy, I was told that at an ASD unit, there are 3 types of SALT provision.

• Group 1 - some selected children, whose worst skill is their language, will get blocks of 1 to 1 SALT. However, they will have to be good at other things.

• Group 2 - some children whose SALT needs are assessed by the unit's SALT and teacher will get an integrated programme but will not get direct SALT. These will be the group that they think are already working at their potential and therefore more SALT won't improve them.

• Group 3 - Those with good S & L - will have access to small groups etc.

It just seems to me that they have given up on one group and think, well there is no point in giving them individual 1 to 1 as they are not going to improve much.

For that reason, I will want SALT quantified.