Government proposes biggest reforms to special educational needs in 30 years

[CQrrrnee]

online consultation closes tomorrow - last chance to reply
here

AT, what do you mean?
No records/minutes of the meeting?
Eh?

Moondog - the amount of times I've had that or 'I'm a mother too you know' or 'I've only just come back from a funeral' - that gem came from the head!

When you get a letter justifying a failure to start a child's statement programme with the explanation that 'targets were sent through the post in November', you have to say SO WHAT!!!! Targets in the post are NOT provision FFS!

Oh yes, Moondog, the SEN Panel keep no records of their decision-making so you can't challenge it.

Pretty standard practice I think

Unbelievable.
I can only cross everything for you and hope they are demolished at tribunal.

You can't not have a record!
That's INSANE!!!!
There must be minutes.
Most places have a rep. from SNAP or Parent Partnership there.
Do you know who is on it?
Ask and if they won't tell you, put in an FoI request.

Moondog It is standard practice to keep no minutes of panel meetings that decide whether or not to issue a statement. The statement itself is used as 'the minutes', and there is no record kept of how they reached that decision, and no record that they did indeed even have, let alone read the evidence submitted.

Lots of LA's do this (I feel a FOI LA sweep coming on......)

It is bad practice, possibly illegal and I have it in my mind to challenge it in my own LA, but you know there are just so many battles you can take on at once. I can't challenge the panel practice when we already have a statement and I need my limited 'challenge points' (each one brings me closer to a vexatious banning) to fight for the illegal behaviour that affects my child now.

I did and got it eventually with help from a local councillor which is part of the reason I am vexatious (which I think means asking questions they can't or won't answer).

When you have an enemy who is prepared to lie and cheat, nothing is certain as Star knows.

That is why we need to pool our collective resources and work and challenge these types of practices all over the country - comparing bad practice with good (the parent partnership rep on the panel is good practice but rare).

So much to do ladies, but can we do it, YES WE CAN!!

'I've only just come back from a funeral'

WTF?

Well that in itself is a good springboard for a mass FoI action on SEN panels throguhout the UK.
As I understand it the 'panel' only 'advise' (whatever the hell that means) anyway. The officer has responsibility for final decisions.

That's real Stasi stuff. Jesus!

Yes, that's true Moondog, that officers hide behind panels, but if you wanted to challenge a decision you haven't got the information.

I believe I could have challenged some of the decision about provision based on the fact that they didn't have let alone read 2 of our independent reports but I can't possibly know whether they did or not. They say they read everything but the two reports didn't appear in the final statement. When I queried it, they then attached them, but I doubt very much they went to panel at all.

Exactly Moondog. What they did in my case was say that the Ed Officer doesn't actually make decisions but they are made by the chair of the panel - a senior SEN manager - in a meeting with the SEN Panel advising ( SEN Panel was an acting head and trainee EP FFS!). The LA Ed Officer has no authority

SEN Panel minutes aren't recorded. Just the decision: considered all the evidence, issue statement with X hours

Yet, after meeting the SEN manager to discuss this and being told that she has all the power, I tried to write to this senior manager about matters relevant to Tribunal, she directed me back to the Ed Officer even though she had said this officer has no powers to make decisions.

They lie and make it up as they go. Little shits.

Star - we can, as a group, pick a few key issues to work on together with FOI Act requests and draw up a picture of what is happening around the country. Then try and get media interest. I have a few ideas on that score.

Well, I never thought I'd be delighting in this given I have worked either directly or indirectly for LA's my whole working life but I think it is great that the media so hate public sector workers right now.

It means they'll love a story that shows LA employees in a bad light. The climate is right for such action.

Star - same here and pursuing it has not gone down well. If you read the reports and can justify your decisions in accordance with 8:32 of SEN COP, you have nothing to hide.

It took me four months to get a very pathetic little explanation for their choice of S&LT out of them despite requests up to senior management level and protestations that 'all the evidence had been considered'. And despite the fact that they were ready to issue DS's statement while admitting the evidence had not been considered at one point.

Their focus is Tribunal but they forget they have the same legal obligations as all other public bodies and they don't start and end with Tribunal.

I agree Star, the time is right for this, it really is - if not now, when? If not us, who?

You need to tap into the Zeitgeist of increased accountability and less money to go around.

You might then find aspiring politicians and right leaning papers sympethetic to your cause. Read this and think about approachnig it from the opposite angle.Not so much the politicos finding the people to match the cause but vice versa.

I'm all for showing up the waste in the LEA but let's not forget that the current climate of "less for more" is being used to reduce provision that is working too.

The LEA person who monitored our language unit had no interest in looking at our outcomes, our evidence base etc. Absolutely zero.

Yet we will close sometime this year because we are not "cost effective". How do you judge that without knowing what we do and what we achieve? What they are saying really is that we cost too much, but "cost effective" sounds more like a decision based on quality. It's not.

This same thing happened with the Nuffield Unit in Ealing which you will often hear mentioned on this board as an example of a very effective provision for a certain group of children. It remains under threat.

For some children, intensive therapy is the cost-effective option.

Absolutely, and we come back to my ridiculous situation where I have to spend more on tribunal fees to 'win' provision for my ds which costs LESS than the LA preferred provision for which THEY are PAYING a legal team to fight for my ds to receive.

If we win, the LA will have to pay £2k to our consultant instead of using £3k worth of their own Advisory Teacher. That's it!

We can also give my ds 20 hours of Masters qualified TA for less than they will be paying for 15 hours of an untrained TA. This will make no difference to them as the money has to go through the school who can employ who they want.

Bonkers.

But this time I have Local Councillors and the media as additions to my armoury. Possibly even my MP.

Working Yes, I won't forget that. Our last tribunal was for more expensive provision that would give my ds a good chance of not needing increased support as he went through school.

Intensive intervention in the early years can mean substantial savings later on. I absolutely agree. Cuts aren't 'good'. I think the trouble is that those responsible for making the decisions about the cuts are prioritising their own jobs for saving. Very few LA have chosen to reduce management in favour of front-line services.

But where cuts are having to be made it is the perfect climate to challenge the rationale. Change, even bad change, brings opportunities. If we are mobilised and determined enough some of those opportunities can be realised.

For some children, intensive therapy is the cost-effective option.

Absolutely - years of crap provision delivered by people who don't know what they are doing or front-loaded decent provision by someone who is trained to deliver it?

It's a no brainer. Cost-effective does not mean which is cheapest NOW.

Star you are right. This is about challenging how people think.

DS's provision, the way it is set out, will lead to years of support to achieve basic things in real time.

Intensive support by the right people could achieve those things in months

I remember the Head of Autism Advisory sitting opposite me in a meeting not long ago saying:

'You and I need to get along, as we're going to be working together for a very long time!'

And I remember thinking clearly 'Is THIS what it is about? Is THIS why you are delivering crap provision? Do you NEED my ds to justify your own salary? Because it was MY intention that he'd have 2 years of intensive intervention and then be shot of you!'

It was thought, but said through a stare and I am half believing we understood each other.

I understand Star. In my situation, it's as if they think I am arguing for more of their services FOREVER when in fact I'm arguing for more of it so at some point I NEVER have to deal with them.

On their basis, their intervention will go on for years: directionless, immeasurable and contentious

And the stupid thing is, because it will cost us more to go to tribunal than to fund the provision ourselves, we have made this point to the HT and offered to.

But teachers being teachers (and my mum and dad were both ones so I don't mean it unkindly) this would be unacceptable because it means that parents who could afford it would BUY their children provision that parents who couldn't can't. And also, you'd get other parents wanting to send in personal 1:1s to support their child in the classroom apparently.

It's all a blimmin circus.

In a nutshell, ladies.
In a nutshell.

Star this thought had crossed my mind too. But how can you get schools to do things that aren't in statements? And as you say, even if they do, schools will then feel they're being monitored by outsiders rather than the crappy LA officer who always tells them they're doing everything they can