Proposed Statement

[Sally200]

Wonder if anyone can help?
Ds, aged 4, likely ASD - query Asperges, diagnosed with SPD. We applied for statement and have heard verbally that statement has been given for 13 hours a week - this is Band 4 at my LA. I am not happy with this - he needs more. I have looked at the Banding Criteria and am not satisfied that he fts within Band 4 - I think it is Band 2 or 3 which is 22 hours and 17.75 hours respectively.
Part of the criteria for Band 4 is that he must be of above average intelligence. All of the experts reports which were submitted as part of the statutory assessment say that he is behind re intellectual ability. Surely they cannot just ignore this criteria? This is my first line of argument.
I have spoken to a lady from the LA and she was asking whether he hd behavioural problems/difficulties as this is a criteria for Band 3 - I explained that he does but not in the way of him being loud, violent, agressive etc. He is very introverted and passive, things have to be just his way or he won't participate etc. She seemed to think that this did not equate to behaviour problems - I disagree and felt like asking her to watch him at home for the day! Does anyone know if there is any expert findings anywhere which details behaviour problems and the fact that it can relate to a child like my ds.
I am starting to get my arguments drawn up and so any help would be massively appreciated.

You're making the wrong argument. Banding us illegal. Criteria for banding is illegal. Don't get drawn into that one.

Wait until you see the document because it sounds like the statement is going to be rubbish anyway. Download the appeal forms and visit IPSEA website. You should get good info there.

Thanks Starlight. Could you tell me where it says that Banding and criteria for Banding is illegal - want to get my arguments formulated asap.

It's not that banding is illegal, it is that blanket policies are llegal.

What if your child needed 12hours or 21 hours?

And you can't just assume because you can tick x no. of boxes for a child this equals the level of support they require. Children are individuals. I think the IPSEA website has a letter they sent out to all LA's reminding them that banding is not allowed for this reason.

But tbh, none of it is as simple as that. And you don't need to argue against it because it is a non-argument. If a 'band' appears in your statement that is enough to convince a tribunal that your case is worthy of appeal. However why get caught up in no. of hours? They are just numbers. It doesn't guarantee any quality of intervention. And I suspect that the number will appear in a way that means they don't even have to deliver the number stated (that is pretty normal, but illegal too, - you're not on your own here - almost everyone on this board starts where you are)

Who is going to be delivering these hours? Is it going to be in the classroom or outside? What are the qualifications and experience of the person/people delivering it? Is it supervisory or educational in nature?

But you can't have the discussion until you have seen the statement. Perhaps it says 13 hours of 1:1 with a qualified teacher with a post graduate degree in ASD who will spend 3 additional hours per week training the staff and class teacher in techniques to ensure that he continues to learn when he/she isn't there? Would you really argue that that isn't enough? (I doubt that is what is written, but you see why you can't make a case until you have seen it.)