TA - make a child 'look different' and statement provision

[appropriatelytrained]

OK, our ruling from the Tribunal had a quote from the head saying that DS didn't need additional hours as this would make him look more different.

This was said in the context of her explaining that he doesn't have support on Wednesdays.

We didn't attend Tribunal but they clearly have gone with this. I am contemplating asking for a review on a variety of grounds but it concerns me that the head has admitted that on Weds DS does not get the support set out in his statement - e.g. daily literacy sessions, daily keyboard sessions, daily OT session - but the Tribunal seem to be indicating that this is ok.

Also, it seems to me that arguing that TA support will make you look different is the wrong argument. Surely it should be: what are the child's needs, are they being met by his statement requirements, how we can meet them so that the child doesn't look different?

If there is a problem with TA support making a child look different, surely that is a problem with the nature of provision and doesn't obviate a child's needs.

Additionally, the Tribunal has not then taken into account the further provision agreed in the statement e..g support through PE, daily help with independence skills when looking at hours.

Any thoughts about this?

No, it's okay, -someone else must have decided it was a good question and redirected it to the appropriate body. I'll get my response soon even though I didn't ask the question. I just thought it was you, but obviously not

I'm away for most of August, and need to get ds settled into a very complex educational arrangement, plus some key people aren't available until Sept so mid Sept we'll get online together and sort out some aims and outcomes for a mini-launch of a shared agenda and direction by the end of the year.

There are some really easy hits I feel, but we need to know what to do about them otherwise there is no point. I think FOI stuff is quite powerful too as a lot of the charities don't have the staff or manpower to do the general stuff, only support individuals. But I feel some of the issues first 'dealt with' will need to be personal ones (on a general scale) as that will keep us motivated to move faster.

Have emailed you Star but hadn't got this when I did. There is a suggestion about a website and funding. See what you think and I can start that ball rolling in preparation for a meet/cyber chat

Just read your post AT and this wednesday business sounds absolute tripe to me too :)

The dependency argument, in relation to a consistent TA has been attempted against my child too but I just don't really get it - why does there need to be inbuilt inconsistency of supporter and in my child's case in a preschool setting, surely developing trusting relationships is a pre requisite to developing independence and surely more important than preventing dependency?

How do they get away with it or even think they will..........but then in reality in the current system they do don't they? makes me sooooo mad!

I hope you find a way of challenging your tribunal outcome. I thought it was useful to have your references to legislation, is there a way of collecting info so others can access it easily? It seems to me that the same issues happen time and time again to many of us, this board helps but if there was a way of bringing the really useful bits of legislation together, making it accessible and applying it to real situations I can see this really helping folks.

That is a good idea and maybe if we get set up with website for the group we can do a page on the practical stuff like 'the legal case against an argument that support makes your child look different' etc

IPSEAs legal stuff seems very old - cases are still relevant but many of the recent and important decisions aren't on there.

SOS-SEN have some more up to date stuff.

But there are very interesting cases on the inquisitorial role of a Tribunal and the duty of impartiality on the LA which should be flagged up.MW v. Halton BC[2010] UKUT 34; CP v M Technology School [2010] UKUT 314.

The LA is supposed to ''lay all its cards on the table' and not just those which help its argument - so they shouldn't be concealing evidence from the court. Worth reminding of this!J See F v Croydon [2006] EWHC 2368 (Admin)