Yes, absolutely!
And, I'm sorry that I've given pause for thought. I must stress that I have no particular knowledge of your DS (other than your postings) and no particular opinion as to whether he should get a Statutory Assessment.
I have just come to realise that on the SN board, the reality is a little skewed.
The proportion of regular posters on MN SN whose children have Statements is relatively high. Certainly more than 2%. Think about it. Off the top of my head, I can think of Lougle (me), Starlight, Peachy, JustHecate, Justabout (although in NZ now), Lottie, Lisad, DevientEnigma, WetAugust, madwomanintheattic....the list goes on, and I'm not even really trying.
Now, that little list alone is 10 posters. If this board were representative of the general population, there would have to be another 490 regular posters who did not have children with Statements.
But, we know that a board like SN:Children will be relatively self-selecting. Regular posters will be either parents of children with confirmed SN, parents of children with SN concerns, or people whose work involves contact with children who have SN.
Taking the last group out of it, we'll look at just those with children who have some SN concerns or confirmed SN. Nationally (rightly or wrongly - that debate is for a different time) we know that roughly 20% of children are on the SEN register at any one time. So, we know that 10% of children with SN of some kind actually need a statement. We can't go further than that, because we all know that it's a bit pot-luck whether a child will be on SA or SA+ for any given set of needs. Local variation will also come into play. In a school in a very deprived area, for example, it may be a relative norm to have a low start point, so the children will not be seen as having SEN, but rather just fit the profile of the school. In another area, a child with the same start point will be markedly below the 'norm' so would be on SA, etc.
My point is, that if we have statistics which indicate 10% of children with SN need Statements, then telling every poster to apply for SA is perhaps a little unrealistic. Also, it can be very easy to tie yourself up in paperwork because the (unintentional) suggestion can be that if you want the best for your child, you'll try everything you can. But, that doesn't mean that the same course of action will fit every situation.
All I was trying to say was 'think carefully - do you need to jump through circus hoops to get what you need?'.
Yes, of course, a Statement has legal force. But, if you need a legal document to secure a bit of sensitivity and an emotions card, or an early pass, I'd suggest that says more about the school than your child, if you understand me?
Statements are excusively for children whose needs require provisions which cannot reasonably be met by a school's delegated resources alone, and require the resources of the LA to do so.
If a child needs those provisions, I'd fight tooth and nail to get them (and I did - I told the LA woman that she wasn't doing enough to secure DD1's future at school, so if it was all the same to her, I'd crack on with a Statement application myself.)
Whatever the outcome, the process will cost you. Emotionally, physically, mentally. But I do think it's a crying shame that some posters get the impression that only a Statement will do, when they could get the same result by finding a school that gives a damn instead.
I remember thinking that a particular (MS) school might cope with DD1. When the HM said 'well Mrs Lougle, you have to try and get the very best Statement you can, because without that I just won't be able to provide the support your DD needs.....' I realised that this school was wholly unsuitable. He was more interested in his budget than DD1, and he'd made that clear by booking another family in to view the school at the same time (despite a very clear telephone conversation outlining DD1's profile), keeping DD1 waiting in a small lobby for 20 minutes (attention span of a gnat, DD1), ignoring her needs during the tour of the school, a cursory wave at the 'SEN section' and banging on about the appearance of the school.
In contrast, a school I hadn't considered 'ideal' (which ironically, DD2 now attends and is thriving at), showed their intentions from the first moment. Waiting for DD1 at the entrance, getting to her level and saying hello to her first, changing the route of the tour because DD1 had been drawn to a particular item in a corner, inviting her to play in a classroom (with support) while we finished our tour, because she had recognised an old pre-school friend.
That school even invited us to meet with the SENCO to talk through DD1's needs - she didn't yet have a Statement. At that meeting, the deputy head heard DD1 screaming in the SENCO's office (an altercation with an umbrella
) from her classroom, left the classroom to come to the office and ased us if DD1 could go and join her class for snack and milk, so that we could continue talking. Just pure, gentle, respectful treatment from the off.
In the end, it became clear that DD1 was a special school kinda girl, but I will never forget the visit that put DD1 first, despite the fact that she wasn't even their charge. It made me certain that DD2 would go there, and if DD1 is off on an INSET day, the Deputy (who is DD2's teacher) always, despite the busy end of day routine, makes a point of speaking to DD1 (always using her name, without prompt).
I've banged on a bit. But I guess I'm just saying - focus on what your DS needs. If that is a Statement - go fight! If it is a more understanding school, find one!