Governing Body [confused]

[Minx179]

I recently put in a complaint to the governing body, among other things I questioned the use of IEP's; not SMART, not reviewed properly, not used etc.

Response from GB essentially says the school expected me to complain about the IEP which was why it was sent to me by email so they could review it afterwards .

Then they criticise me for being vexatious. FFS .

I can't even begin to think what happened there....

That sounds very odd!
I'm not sure that it is something a governing body would get particularly involved in either - I'm a governor and I cant remember that we ever have done.

Complaints procedures usually have an escalation from class teacher/SENCo, then to HT, then to governing body (and onwards.) I think, starfishmummy, you have been lucky that any complaints have been dealt with by the school.

That seems a very strange way of dealing with an inadequate IEP, Minx. Are they saying that they expected you to complain, as they think you always do (!) or because they knew the IEP was rubbish?

It sounds to me that your relationship with this school is not going very well! Was that your understanding, or has this come as a bit of a shock? It really doesn't seem a very professional way to deal with parent.

The GB would normally deal with issues of policy. That doesn't mean they won't get involved in individual cases, but they do it by setting the relevant policy, auditing to see it's generally adhering to and checking that it's been adhered to in specific cases which get escalated to them. If this is a mainstream school, there should be a SEN policy and a specific SEN governor and they should be seeing that the IEP matches the CoP (Code of Practice).

It is technically true (If your statemented I think it's education law rather than just best practice) that the IEP should be sent in for parental comment before the review process. So yes, they are supposed to send it to you in draft form, you criticise it, they amend it for approval in the review meeting. So from the GB's Pov, ie seeing that the SEN policy is being followed, I can see why they responded as they did, though calling you "vexatious" is not good at all, I'd almost take legal advice on that one. .

What I'd do at this point is ask for a written copy of the SEN policy and download the current version of the SEN CoP. Take the IEP to bits in detail, in writing, and demand radical changes. When they refuse the changes, then go back to the GB complaining they are not complying with their own SEN policy.

Thanks for the responses. It's a long one

Indigo - that is only one of the anomalies/contradictions in the letter, there are many others.

R3dh3d ? other than going back to the GB and complaining they are not complying with their own SEN policy, which I am in the process of doing, I have already essentially done as you suggested. I just thought I would post on here to make sure I?m NBU.

Apparently because I turned an IEP down in Dec 2008 (SENCO: he?s been moved to SA+ (bullying/SH) but, we don?t know what to put on IEP. ME: they are ignored anyway (despondent period)), this appears to justify the school not putting one in place despite me requesting one since March 2009.

DS was only issued an IEP last May (despite two years of me requesting one be put in place verbally and in writing, school do not use progression mapping, he had been at SA+ for those two years), I raised my concerns about it not being SMART, liable to be ignored by teachers. My questions/concerns went unanswered, IEP remained in place.

IEP should have been reviewed during the autumn term, it wasn't. I requested a review with the SENCO in December 10 (review would happen first two weeks Jan), again mid January 11. In February I raised the issue with HOY (I will be given IEP in due course). Late Feb I received old IEP (targets not met) and new IEP, 2 targets remained the same, two new targets but they will require significantly more attainment and progression to meet than was required with the previous unmet targets, they are still not SMART.

I sent an email to the SENCO, outlining my concerns re new IEP. No response.

Target 1 (May 10 and Feb 11) - to use electronic means for recording large amounts of work - how much is a large amount? Whose responsibility is it to ensure DS has access? Teachers ensure DS has access to laptop for course work write ups and exams, but not in lessons unless whole class were using them. Applied for laptop under DDA Sep 10, DS allocated one by school, but conditions of use means he has never collected it .

Between the raising of the first IEP in May 10 and the second in Feb 11, the school have received 2 EP reports, 1 OT, 2 S&L (NHS and private) and a Paediatric report which they could draw on. Plus three lots of teacher feedback. We have also attended 2 MAM's; head overrode recommendations.

July 10 - School reluctantly applied for statement, on recommendation of paediatrician/OT. LEA agreed to assess, but refused statement end Nov. In mid Jan I gave a copy of Note in Lieu to HOY, passed to SENCO mid Feb.

Feb - letter to GB asking how school adhere to IEP's and the CoP; citing specific paragraphs from CoP and school SEN policy plus examples of DS.

March - meeting with LEA and SENCO to discuss NIL and forthcoming tribunal; we won't get a statement, waste of time, school meeting his needs etc. Though SENCO admitted that DS has only got support because I have pushed and questioned the school.
During meeting SENCO suggests IEP can be amended. After meeting I received an email stating she had informed teachers/TA's that DS needs laptop when writing . Crap IEP still in place, no review on horizon.

March - Letter from GB, stating that all teachers/TA's have copy of IEP's and adhere to them . IEP was not reviewed as they had expected a statement to be put in place. IEP's are not necessary, they are not a legal requirement, teachers use a number of means to support/identify children's needs, and events overtook new IEP being implemented. Letter has omitted SEN Cop references.

School were informed late Nov by LEA that NIL had been issued, but had no further info from LEA (which should have highlighted to them that we were appealing otherwise they would have received a copy, I informed SENCO we would be appealing Dec).

March, additional educational evidence to LEA/tribunal. LEA have now decided to issue statement as 'this has gone on long enough', no explanation of what this means. DS finishes school in May, and will hopefully go to college so statement is primarily a paper exercise. Received Statement today, says exactly the same as NIL. I don?t have the time or impetus to tackle this.

Vexatious - I think that by continually stating I could be considered vexatious the GB may be hoping I go away. I won't . GB also state that as the head and SMT have been closely involved, issues were resolved, strategies put in place etc ? (not correct) BUT over the last two years the head has ensured I don't talk to DS's teachers, only him or members of the SMT, information has regularly been withheld of teachers educational concerns re DS; I have accessed these through FOI?s, or snatching them out of SENCO?s hand. GB has also highlighted the fact that some info I had asked for under FOI is in school, though not passed on.

The whole thing is a mess and designed to grind you down. I?m prepared to seek legal advice, but not sure we could afford it.