Legal: ABA is not educational provision apparently....

[StarlightMcKenzie]

and as such cannot appear in part 3 according to my LA's solicitor.

Further, section 9 apparently only creates a bias in favour of parental choice where more than one school is under consideration, which it isn't in this case.

what is it, then, if not educational provision?

The stupid document says:

ABA is not educational provision. It involves using behavioural learning theory to modify behaviours in the child which is much wider than simply being provided in an educational setting. by functionally assessing the relationship between a targeted behaviour and the environment, the methods of ABA can be used to change that behaviour.

However, ABA does not offer or teach a curriculum, it is not provided by qualified teaching professionals, and it is not regulated and inspected by Ofsted.

hmm.

well, they are right on most points there, as you know (Ofsted, qualified teaching professionals etc)

our angle was that dd1 could not learn by any other teaching method, rather than the educational provision of ABA, iyswim? since she had been going backwards in A.N. Other provision, using eclectic approaches, and we could prove prgress under ABA that no one else could even get her to demonstrate - that kind of made our point.

but I think we would have struggled to prove ABA as an educational provision in the way they are making out.

however, if the educational provision can suppply a curriculum, but cannot do so in a manner which enables your ds to learn - what are they going to do about it? you have proof, don't you, that your ds has stood still since ceasing ABA?

Perhaps it's not educational provision but...

In DS's Statement it said that teaching methods should be finely graded to enable him to access the cirriculum......

So, in essence, what's the difference between 'finely graded teaching methods' as an aid to accessing the cirriculum and ABA which permits mini-Star to do the same?

I would argue they are equally as valid.

They really are putting up a fight over this. It must be tying their lawyers up for hours on end

I think, the easiest point to make is that TEACHH is not a curriculum and neither is a hearing aid.

They are tools to enable children, (for whom them are appropriate) access the National Curriculum, as delivered by qualified professionals and inspected by Ofsted, and that also, Treehouse is inspected by Ofsted and they do not criticise their teaching methodology which is ABA.

And as a tool to enable the child to access the National Curriculum, it is therefore educational provision.....?

Silverfrog. Yes I have evidence that he didn't progress, but they are insisting that there are as yet unseen documents that give evidence of his progress.

I wouldn't criticise TEACCH - it doesn't go down well.

but yes to other points - except (imo) it being a style of teaching to enable your ds to access the curriculum does not make it educational provision.

but in essence, there is little point htere being a curriculum which your ds cannot access. he needs it delivered in such a way as to ensure he can learn, and for him, ABA is that delivery style.

oh, and dd1's ABA school just had an outstanding Ofsted too.

can you not work Treetops into it somewhere? after all, your county uses ABA in one of it's own SN schools, as the most effective (one would hope) mehtod of delivering the curriculum in the Early Years. that is sucha huge thing, and not many state Sn schols owuld even hint at doing similar...

That's not my county. It's the one next door.

ah. sorry.

bugger.

I think the problem is that only educational provision can go into part 3. There is case law that he has quoted that shows that therapy with 'educational benefits' does not make it 'educational provision'.

but the whole point of a statement is to lay out educational need.

educational need does not need to be educational provision, iyswim?

your ds needs his curriculum delivered via ABA otherwise he does not learn.

it is only the same recommendation as the LA is making (curriculum to be delivered via an eclectic mix of TEACCH, green spots, circle time and games of Simon Says lead by little green men) after all.

if the LA is saying that you cannot recommend a teaching style, then their own recommendations need to be thrown out too...

this is not about therapy with educational benefits (as in music therapy or similar) - as he has pointed out, ABA has no curriculum, and so cannot belikened to a therapy with a course path set out, and goals etc; it is about ensuring your ds can access the curriculum - shades of differentiation, I guess. the curriculum supplies the goals, ABA ensures they are delivered ina suitable manner for your ds.

DS does have an ABA curriculum set out in "work in progress' the book written by AP Directors. Koegal / PRT also sell curriculum materials, as does Early Denver. It is just an autism specific curriculum - like Teacch is supposed to be.
The fact that funding comes from the LA not the NHS means that the Govt has decided ABA should be education and under the LA rather than prescribed by paediatricians and a health intervention as it might be in other countries.
Thats the system we have and which SENDIST have to work with.
Lots of education is delivered by TAs not teachers.
And actually OFSTED do inspect ABA schools and units - our tutor was in nursery the day of the OFSTED inspection and got a glowing report (although sadly the nursery did not declare she was not on their staff!)
Its the same argument for speech therapy / PECSs surely? If it involves teaching a child / helping a child access learning then its educational.

What does giving a child a coloured spot to sit on do then if its not to encourage the child to change their behaviour and sit on it?

The Tribunal is going to hate this man. Big time.

yes, but the school don't want ABA involved at all - and so don't thin arguing ABA can come with a curriculum woud win any brownie points - think Starlight is trying to argue minimal disruption to the school.

PECS is an excellent point - if PECS can be used in the school, then why not other ABA delivery points?

The 'finely graded' thing was in Part 3.

You know what though?

There is plenty of 'ds requires visual supports and now and next boards etc.' all littered throughout part 3.

Agnes This man won the huge contract with the LA on the basis of winning against us last time.

But to be fair, it wasn't him that won it for the LA, it was the tribunal panel, so hopefully he is just misguidedly overly confident

Thank you Wet. Finely graded is a good term.

Hopefully I'll figure this out and make it make sense. Grrrrrrrrrr. It's intolerable!

Can I argue that any provision with 'learning outcomes' is educational?

'The Tribunal is going to hate this man. Big time.'

That's why everyone seems to think I should go unrepresented and hope for an impartial panel.

If I have a panel like last time then there is no tribunal. It is lost and I have my money.

When's it due to be heard Star?

There is some case law quoted on ABA-UK site from Wandsworth vs Keeffe. Says ABA can be in parts 3 or 4