ABA in part 3, not part 4!

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Hi all,

Wonder if you can help us. We are happy with the school in the statement but we
want the statement to state that the 1:1 support for the number of hours
specified, is carried out by our tutors.

The LA's response is that we cannot specify this as we have not appealed part 4,
and that by not appealing part 4, we are declaring our satisfaction at the
school being able to meet the needs of our son, and therefore have no right at
all to insist that part 3 is changed in this regard.

Grrrrrrrrrr.

So, if they are saying that advice specific to supporting your DS's ability to learn in respect of his autism must be provided by their Autism Outreach team as apposed to your ABA tutor, have you yet asked the LA to detail their AOT's qualifications as they specifically relate to austism support? I'll bet their team don't have any.

Why not raise the stakes and quote the HR Act back to them - Right to Education. Argument - your DS cannot access education without the appropriate behavioural support and that appropriate support is ABA?

IPSEA informed me that pareents can ask for anything at all to be written into Statements - e.g. horse riding sessions if that was deemed appropriate.

If you're paying the ABA tutor then the LA's only objection can be one of access to school - or am I missing something.

Agnes, I can't open part 4. The school would love nothing more. They are fundamentally opposed to ds going there regardless.

I am afraid that he will lose the security of having the school named in part4 if we chose to keep him out pending the tribunal decision. The HT is writing a witness statement against us and the SENCO is appearing as a witness against us .

That sounds bad probably, but it would be the same no matter what school, so on that basis we want this one.

The problem with opening up Part 4 to appeal is that Star would then risk the loss of a placement at what she considers to be an appropriate school. The danger is that the LA could try to place mini-Star at an alternative school.

However, if Parts 2 and 3 ae amended by Tribunal won't the existing school be re-consulted to consider whther they can still meet the revised Part 3?

Yes. Our case is very simple.

ds has an LSA funded by the school.

We would like them to fund ours instead.

ds has an advisory teacher that goes into school.

We would like our advisory teacher instead.

All our people are vastly more qualified than theirs, and slightly cheaper.

They will have to pay because our funds are running out, but this doesn't make any difference because a while back we offered them all this for free and they refused, telling us we had to go to tribunal, and tribunal cannot rule that the parents fund anything.

Oops - thinking alike 3 minutes apart Star

Perhaps Wet, but the only grounds will be the education of others, which they couldn't win as there are no extra people involved, or extra therapy or anything really. Just our people instead of theirs.

They are a SEN pathfinder btw, who's number one preference for getting awarded this was personalised budget and parental control over the provision of their children. I tell no lie!

That's scary Wet. You're not pregnant too are you?

Hmm. Ok see your point. Well then you are right PArt 4 is just about placement not provision.
But I would ring SENDIST / legal bods and check because if LA won on that point the Panel would not be able to look at your appeal at all.
Also you and LA are not arguing about this school you both say it can meet need and it is holding a place open when most other schools do not have a spare place presumably. If you and LA both want the school to take DS then the school are not going to get a say, in fact it will help you if they say they can't meet need
I wonder if SENDIST Judge would make a direction on it / clarify it before the main hearing.
The school are not a party to the hearing they are a witness, they don't get to say we will take him or not take him. Also there is no alternative on the table
What does all that govt statement writing guidance say

Yes, I might do that Agnes, just so everyone is clear.

Wet, What HR Act?

Sorry pinkorkid, I meant to say thanks. Your post sets it out perfectly and sensibly.

And moondog too.

Thanks very much. I know most of this stuff in my heart but it helps to have people write it down so I don't feel like I live in some insane parallel universe.

Also, when you get these things, you panic at the complexity or unpicking it. Well, I'm good at unpicking, but not so good at not panicking.

Human Rights - I read that Councils etc are very disinclined to get embroiled in HR arguments and will often concede rather than go down that route.

No - thankfully my child-bearing days are over

I can't help thinking your request would be more sympathetically met in the independant sector or special school. Although it would have to be in the Statement before transfer to Ind sector - which is a bit chicken and egg.

Except that with personal budgets and academies being able to choose where to spend their SEN money Star is just a being a pathfinder. I can see the Tribunal struggling to say a parent can't choose given the Govt agenda. Its not an attractive argument for a pathfinder LA to run. Sort of you can spend your personal budget but only how I say. Allegedly we will all have this right come 2014 anyway. if I were a decent autism advisory teacher I would be setting up as a private consultant right now.

Although personal choice should be given to parents if employed as an employee (lsa) then as the council/school is the employer they would still need to obey equal opportunities. So a parent may argue to be apart of the process the school would have a say and the most qualified should get the post. The rules are different for consultants as they are paid fees. So for the tribunal to agree they would need to side step equal ops, make a school and the lea responsible for provision that is not provided or vetted by them (except police check). Who would be responsible if lsa quit? It would be different if statement said aba experienced lsa then the school would need to make reasonable adjustment and advertise for post or the school allowed aba tutor to shadow advise lsa but that is finding the right school or a good lawyer.

squid Our tutors are absolutely more qualified than theirs though.

And actually, both our tutors do sell themselves as 'consultants' too and they are justified and qualified to do so.

If the LSA quit, our proper consultant would be responsible for replacing them to a standard and level that fits with DS. I would like to think that this would be done in conjunction with the school as far as is possible however.

Sorry I did not want to sound like I was judging it is that having worked in education I was trying to give the arguments that the lea would give. I have no doubt they would provide a better system and are more qualified, but that the lea will prepare arguments that could include the points I made. Posts that are given contracts as the lsa would be need to be advertised internally as well as externally with staff already employed by the school/ lea applying, the aba would rule them out but is still should be advertised. If you had the consultant only and she had the funding to supply tutors that would count as a consultant. But again there is a difference between a consultant visiting the school and a tutor spending most of the day.

Yes, thank you, you are probably right.

The model probably should be one where the whole package is an intervention/model is what is being 'bought', (rather than seperate individuals), with the Consultant responsible for 'supplying' the tutors.

Thank you, as I was struggling with this.

And finally they wrote this lovely nugget:

'The objectives for DS should be set to reflect what the targets are for the next year. Given DS? ASD it is not realistic to expect him to be able to ?catch up? with his peers.'

LOL (or is there one for weeping?)