You couldn't make this up

[asdx2]

Anyone want a laugh? Response from LEA to halt the Judicial Review process.
Four months after the deadline and six months after the Annual Review today I get the amended statement (only I haven't it's in the post so I demanded an email attachment)and.........wait for it......they have decided not to amend the statement and ds's placement for post 16 is to be in the unit.

The unit that has already stated three times that they can't meet his needs and a place that technically doesn't exist because it's a five year placement and it has recently been decided that any students from the unit wishing to stay post 16 would transfer to the mainstream and be supported through learning support.So ds's statement that categorically states his placement is in the unit is obsolete.

I'd love to say I was joking but I'm not unfortunately. I have been offered a meeting with the LIO to discuss any concerns the same LIO that stated categorically the unit was no longer an option for post 16.

So ds's amended statement names the current placement (everything on the statement remains unchanged) which is a unit attached to a mainstream school.

The unit by the LEA's own admission is an 11 to 16 placement. The following is taken from the school website and the head of the unit confirms it is there through the LEA's directive.

Admissions are made through *** Local Authority. They use the following essential admission criteria:
Student has a diagnosis of ASD from a Psychologist or doctor
Student has a statement of Special Educational Needs
Student is in KS3 or 4

So have the lazy bastards at the LEA named a provision that doesn't exist or am I misunderstanding something?

Do a FOI request to see how many other children have lost their LEGAL RIGHT to post 16 education before you?

That wouldbe a waste of time as the LA has no duty to provide suitable education after the age of statutory education - which I understand is still 16. However, if the child is in a school that can provide a placement to age 18 the LA is expected to continue to maintain that statement until the child leaves school at 18.

It's a huge and growing problem. This happened to DS2 in 2004. There will have been many many more since then.

The situation is so grey that PP and IPSEA could not advise me. The SEN COP implied that the LA had no duty to maintain a statement post-16 if it could not provide a placemnet and only had to ensure that any non-LA placemnet post-16 was suitable. However the LS&C guidance contradicted that by expecting the LA to continue to support children with statements up to age 18.

So they fall between 2 stools. I think a JR is definitely due on this issue. There are some Tribunal and LGO decisions that touch on this subject but nothing definitive.

What made me very was that the LA forced my son to leave school and then totally abandoned any help to identify a suitable post-16 placement and failed in their duty to ensure it was suitable - they didn't even know what FE course he was doing!

While I was visiting suitable post-16 [placements I kept meeting parents who had really reasonable LAs that were totally compliant and agreeing to fund things like the Wing Centre post-16 while I was hung out to dry

The question should be:

"How many students does the LA fund who are in Year 12 or 13 in non-maintained and independant placements?"

That will tell you if they ever fund post-16 education.

this might be a bit outdated but worth a look you prob seen/know all this already but as my ds will be in this position in not to distant future thouht id post it

www.snapcharity.org/content.php?pg=3&gid=339&cont=389

Thanks Smile I've seen that guidance before and it's probably a bit out of date now that the L&SC is being / has been disbanded.

Yes, iit's age 19 that their statements are maintained until if they stay at school.

It didn't address my DS's case. He had been in school, wanted to stay in school post 16 but needed a specialist school setting post 16 however the LA had no such provsion and refused fund specialist independant school post 16. Instead they forced him to leave school and let the LS&C pick up
the £75K per year for the specailist FE College.

Cynical self-serving bastards

My understanding is that young people who have had a statement are now elligible for funding for education to the age of 25, I have an NTST (national transition support team) briefing paper but no idea how to attach it here, if you would like it asdx2 PM me so we can work out how I can get it to you. There is some caselaw which may be of interest to you which i have come accross - Alloway v London Borough of Bromley case, it may be worth a look at this.

Good luck with your battle for what your child needs.

direlahere I'll pm you my email address and or home address I'd love to see it thank you.

I keep trying to think of the positives of which there aren't many to be fair BUT they haven't ceased the statement, they haven't named an FE college which in effect would mean the statement would cease as they wouldn't have to fund and support in our two local FE colleges could be called ad hoc at best and by naming the unit with the support unchanged (even if it doesn't technically exist) then they are by default acknowledging he he has high level specialist support needs.
It will be very interesting what the solicitor has to say on Monday when she gets back anyway.The letter she'll send to the LEA should make for interesting reading at least

The LA wouldn't ever have named a FE college on a statement because over-16s going to a college aren't considered 'children' so they don't get statements. They would have just ceased the statement in that case.

I'd be quite worried about having a LA provision named on the statement, even if it's one that has previously supported you. The LA usually puts pressure on the staff to appear at tribunals and play down issues - even the most helpful staff can suddenly turn against you when it's their job on the line . There have been a few tribunal cases where the LA has created new units or extended provision apparently for just one pupil, even if it didn't exist before, just to avoid paying out for independent schools. They are probably using the time prior to tribunal to plan something like that.

I think the unit is feeling shafted tbh because they told the LA six months ago that they weren't meeting his needs. At meetings with the LIO and the Ed psych they have both categorically stated that the unit wouldn't be able to meet his needs and at no time did the LA suggest it as a possibility for post 16. So we assumed (wrongly it appears ) that when ds left before half term then that would be the end. The unit gave him framed photo and a book of memories and wishes for the future for him so convinced were they as I was that he had left.
Now they are facing meeting ds's needs when he has the highest level of support alongside two new year sevens but without the extra resources alongside that they will have to provide an individual curriculum as he won't be able to access the post 16 curriculum in mainstream.
The head of the unit has offered his support but as you say if it goes to Tribunal then who knows how supportive he is able to be.