Help needed tribunal vast approaching :0(

[nickminiink]

Hi, our tribunal against the refusal of a statement is vast approaching June 15th and I have just received the EP latest assessment, carried out on almost the last day of the deadline date for evidence. As suspected all of sudden my son's progress has considerably improved, please see below results :
Verbal Comprehension : Composite score : 85, percentile rank :16, confidence Interval 79-93
Perceptual Reasoning : Composite score : 88, percentile rank :21, confidence Interval 87-97
Working Memory : Composite score : 80, percentile rank :9, confidence Interval 74-89
Processing Speed: Composite score : 103, percentile rank :58, confidence Interval 94-112

First of all what does all of this mean, I know what the percentile rank means but no idea on the composite score or confidence interval, anyone who can explain would be very much appreciated as I need to know for the tribunal.

Also what I can't get my head around is we had a private SALT assessment 1 month ago and she reported the following :
Recalling spoken sentences : Percentile score: 1st , Age equivalent score: 5 years 6 months, a year ago it was Percentile score: 2nd ,Age equivalent score: 5 years 5 months
Also she reported word finding is the age equivalent of a 5 yr 10 mths, last year 5 yr 2months
Formulated sentences Percentile score: Percentile score: 2nd, Age equivalent score: 8 years 1 month and last year 5th Percentile , Age equivalent score: 8 years

The above surely shows lack of progress especially in working memory, I have to to go to a tribunal to try and prove this how can based on the lastest EP report, any advice would be appreciated.

Also if we do lose the case would we be eligible to pay any court costs ?

Thanks
Nick

There are no costs payable at tribunal unless you bring your own lawyer / your own witnesses charge. You don't pay the other sides costs.

Let someone more knowledgeable deal with the EP bit

A composite score is a score achieved by adding 2 or more things together. I think (but am not 100%) that a confidence interval is a score based on observations.

It would seem they have added centile and confidence score together to reach the overall composite score. So centile and observation to give an overall score.

Phone the EP and ask her to explain. You could also phone IPSEA or SEN SOS.

Sorry not added as such, worked out i should have said, more like an average.

I think the confidence interval part is to do with the likely accuracy of the score. Perhaps on a different day your dc might come out with a slightly different score but this confidence interval is saying tha the score would not be likely to be vastly different but would most likely fall within the paramenters given. So for "Verbal Comprehension : Composite score : 85, percentile rank :16, confidence Interval 79-93", his score for this test was 85, the margin of error is likely to be no less than 79 and no more than 93.

Pink, explained it so much better, than my 'average'!

Thank you for the explainations that now makes sense to me, not sure why the SALT has such low scores and the EP high scores. Going to be very hard to prove lack of progress against this report, especially in Educational Lingo I do not understand.

Thanks again.

Was this a private report or LEA? It sounds as if it is the WISC IV. What does the explanatory text say? Have you been provided with scores of the sub-tests - eg working memory is tested by digit span and letter number sequencing? The assessments carried out by the SALT are different and do not permit comparison. You need to compare like with like. Has he had any EP assessment before and do you have standardised tests for reading or spelling? Don't worry about fully understanding the stats (the mean of the composite equals the sum of the scaled scores). You should have an explanation of why verbal, perceptual and working memory are all significantly below average (50%) - what does the profile suggest?

The confidence interval is an 'estimate'. Centiles are 'precise'. So you could argue that point.

SALT scores show lack of progress over a year. EP was just that day and centiles are still on the low side.

SALT and EP, have not done 'like for like' tests, they have used different assessments, so scores can vary.

What difficulties do you notice? How do they affect your ds? Can he understand what you say? can he follow instructions?

Thanks KeepOnKeepingOn1, the report by the EP was from the LEA, the SALT was a private report. Yes it the WISC IV was used, the explanatory text is advising his progress from the last asessment in March 2009, for instance she's put against verbal comprehension his precentile rank has increased from 6-16. The report states 10 subtests were administered which tap into skills which cluster together to provide informaton on four scales which are the four mentioned above. The only other thing mentioned is the third subtest "Vocabulary Knowledge", which would be expected of an average child aged 8 years 10 months (Chronological age 11 years 4 momths). She then states this is not exceptionally low level of perfomance although clearly there is scope for and every reason to expect further progress at High School. She also states my son's overall ability falls within the 81-90 range, 10-25th percentile rank which places him within the broadly "low average" ability range.
Attainment levels : Word reading 25 percentile - Age 9yr3mth, was percentile 8- Sept 2011 and Spelling 34-39 (as my DS mis spelt words by just one letter / homophones which could be corrected with a spell checker) - Age 10.6 - 14.9 years (Don't get this he is 11yr 4mths so is she saying in spelling he can achieve the level of a 14yr old ?, strange as he feels he only got one spelling correct out of 20 in his SATS ), was percentile 10 - September 2011. With type of figures I stand no chance of winning my tribunal, am I wasting my time trying to fight this as how can I defend myself against this type of report and progress on paper.

He has been seen by an EP March 2009 and Sept 2011 as detailed above some comparisons.

With regards explanations, against a section Relative weaknesses - she states working memory continues to be na area of significant weakness which all subject teachers needs to take into consideration when he moves to High School ( see recommendations). A weakness in this aspect of memory is associated with specifice learning, dyslexia and will impact on all areas of learning. However there maany effective classroom arrangements which help dyslexic learners with wakness in working memory and information is available to my DS's teachers (DfE publication " Teaching and Supporting Pupils with Dyslexia"). The she lists recommendations etc etc.

Claw4 - Diffiuclties with my DS are following instructions he forgets so easily what has been said to him, for us not a problem as we repeat, breakdown etc, in class this will not happen, he struggles with complex language and understanding and following complex instructions once again in the class room this will be a huge struggle especially when he moves to Secondary. He can not always find the right words to say so he speech is very immature and speaks in broken sentences. He is quiet in the classroom and doe snot ask for help to shy or afriad to ask as I guess the fear of not being able to explain why he is confused. He is not a naughty boy so causes no difficulty to the teachers so gets overlooked alot. The list goes on as he suffers with TICS and anxiety especially over literacy homework.

Based on this report am I wasting my time as they show good steady progress which his school work does not compare, except in maths where he is ok ie below average but he enjoys maths but struggles with written mathematical problems.

Thanks
Nick

Its not necessarily about progress, as such, but adequate progress. So for example your ds be age 10, with the reading age of 7, but has still made some progress since his last assessment. He is still not in line with his peers.

SEN COP 5:42 adequate progress can be defined in a number of ways. It might, for instance, be progress which:

? closes the attainment gap between the child and their peers
? prevents the attainment gap growing wider
? is similar to that of peers starting from the same attainment baseline, but less than that of the majority of peers
? matches or betters the child?s previous rate of progress
? ensures access to the full curriculum
? demonstrates an improvement in self-help, social or personal skills
? demonstrates improvements in the child?s behaviour

You could use the fact that you have seen no improvements or evidence of progress in difficulties at home and give examples.

Behaviour, emotional and social development

SEN COP 7:60 Children and young people who demonstrate features of emotional and behavioural difficulties, who are withdrawn or isolated, disruptive and disturbing, hyperactive and lack concentration; those with immature social skills; and those presenting challenging behaviours arising from other complex special needs, may require help or counselling for some, or all, of the following:

? flexible teaching arrangements
? help with development of social competence and emotional maturity
? help in adjusting to school expectations and routines
? help in acquiring the skills of positive interaction with peers and adults
? specialised behavioural and cognitive approaches
? re-channelling or re-focusing to diminish repetitive and self-injurious behaviours
? provision of class and school systems which control or censure negative or difficult behaviours and encourage positive behaviour
? provision of a safe and supportive environment.

SEN COP 7:61 The LEA will need to consider, on an individual basis, whether these interventions can beprovided through School Action Plus or whether the LEA needs to undertake a statutory assessment.

This would cover anxiety and tics.

Communication and interaction

SEN COP 7:55 Most children with special educational needs have strengths and difficuties in one, some or all of the areas of speech, language and communication. Their communication needs may be both diverse and complex. They will need to continue to develop their linguistic competence in order to support their thinking as well as their communication. The range of difficulties will encompass children and young people with speech and language delay, impairments or disorders, specific learning difficulties, such as dyslexia and dyspraxia, hearing impairment and those who demonstrate features within the autistic spectrum; they may also apply to some children and young people with moderate, severe or profound learning difficulties. The range of need will include those for whom language and communication difficulties are the result of permanent sensory or physical impairment.

SEN COP 7:56 These children may require some, or all, of the following:
_
? flexible teaching arrangements
? help in acquiring, comprehending and using language
? help in articulation
? help in acquiring literacy skills
? help in using augmentative and alternative means of communication
? help to use different means of communication confidently and competently for a range of purposes, including formal situations help in organising and coordinating oral and written language
? support to compensate for the impact of a communication difficulty on learning in
? English as an additional language
? help in expressing, comprehending and using their own language, where English is not the first language.

SEN COP 7:57 If the LEA considers that some or all of these programmes could be provided for a child by the school in collaboration with LEA or external support services, then the LEA may conclude that intervention should be provided at School Action Plus and monitored to see if the action was effective. It would then be appropriate for the LEA to conclude that a statutory assessment was not necessary. If, on the other hand, the school and support services had already provided these interventions through School Action Plus and the child had not made acceptable progress, then a statutory assessment should be considered.

Really most of part 7 of the SEN COP will probably apply and might be worth you reading and quoting.

claw4, wow thank you. I now realised I am not in the same league as alot of you on you on here, you are very knowledgeable. Just one thing isn't section 7 of the SENCOP regarding SA, we have gone past that stage and had a SA and a NIL deemed necessary, we are fighting the NIL for a statement.
This is so overwhelming you have to be an expert and I am certainly not an expert in this field.

Thanks again
Nick

Oh sorry i thought they were refusing to assess, thats the stage im currently at and have it stuck in my head. You could still use 5.42. Will have a quick look at the SEN COP, see what i can find.

Not that knowledgeable, i gave you the wrong bit

The LEAs SEN policy will say what they define 'adequate' performance as. I don't know if you are aware of the Rose Review which is the main LEA document covering dyslexia. Apologies for the long quote - according to the Rose Review (2003, pp 178-9),

'Many UK studies report results not in standard scores but in reading and spelling ages, from which ratio gains can be calculated in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. A ratio gain of 1.0 means that the child?s skills are developing at a normal pace, but they will not be catching up with their peers. Brooks (2007) suggests that ratio gains of less than 1.4 are of ?doubtful educational significance?, between 1.4 and 2.0 of ?modest impact?, between 2.0 and 3.0 of ?useful impact?, between 3.0 and 4.0 of ?substantial impact? and above 4.0 of ?remarkable impact? (Brooks. 2007, p. 289).

However, Brooks (2007) points out that ordinary teaching (i.e. no intervention) does not enable children with literacy difficulties to catch up, and hence it is fair to presume that, in the absence of control or comparison groups, and where effect sizes cannot be calculated, findings of ratio gains in excess of 2.0 may be taken as good evidence in support of the method employed. Indeed, several studies have shown that, without help, dyslexic pupils progress at around only 5 months per calendar year in reading (ratio gain 0.42) and 3 months in spelling (ratio gain 0.25) (Thomson, 1990, 2001; see also Rack and Walker, 1994). Dr Singleton suggests that in cases of dyslexia the achievement of ratio gains of 1.00 or greater represents substantial progress for these individuals, even though they may still have literacy skills below levels required to access the curriculum effectively.'

I reported results to the LEA saying 'With regard to spelling, IEP data records assessment in November 2011 (nfer Nelson) of SA 7.06 at CA 10.11 (- 3 years, 6 months) whilst the post-it note recounts September 2011 (nfer Nelson) result of SA 7.05 with CA 10.09 (- 3 years, 5 months) and April 2012 (nfer Nelson) of SA 7.08 with CA 11.4 (- 3 years, 10 months). Thus in a six month period DS has made progress of around two months. This represents a ratio gain of 0.3, during the course of a Wave 3 intervention, and is clearly inadequate. This demonstrates that the intervention has been unsuccessful in improving spelling performance. This is commensurate with rate of progress prior to the specific intervention (ratio gain 0.3, July 2010-July 2011) whose effectiveness is being evaluated, and, is similar to that expected by a child receiving no help, rather than the maximum permitted at Action+ level.

Some LEAs also use ratio gains to assess the persistence of dyslexic difficulties. According to these criteria, the measure of persistence has been taken to be a ratio gain of less than 0.5 whereby with maximum SA+ support dyslexic learners are making only half the expected progress (6 months in one year). The data (ratio gain of 0.3) clearly demonstrates the persistence of learning difficulties despite well-founded intervention. Furthermore, the data clearly demonstrates the widening of measured attainment gap over time in response to appropriate and thorough learning opportunities.'

You need to work out how many months are between standardised assessments and then how much 'progress' there has been in that time. Just because some progress has taken place, it does not mean that the progress is 'adequate'.

So you have a NIL?

Should also have said that you can do the same comparison with teacher assessed SATs Levels which you will have. LEAs have different criteria of what constitutes adequate performace (eg 1 sub-level each 2 terms or per academic year). Hence a couple of sub-levels progress over 4 years is actually regression which means that you can demonstrate 'lack of progress'. EP assessments of progress are good but should be matched by progress within the classroom. This use of language is standard 'spin' - when someone is ill we do not say that they have a lack of health!

meant 'progress' not 'performance'

You need part 8 of SEN COP 8.12 and 8.13 might be helpful.

8:12 If the statutory assessment confirms that the assessment and provision made by the school or early education setting is appropriate but the child is nonetheless not progressing, or not progressing sufficiently well, the LEA should consider what further provision may be needed and whether that provision can be made within the school?s or setting?s resources or whether a statement is necessary.

8:13 The following are examples of possible approaches: (bit and choose if any of this appies to your ds)

If the LEA concludes that, for example,
the child?s learning difficulties call for:
? occasional or irregular advice to the school from an external specialist
? occasional or irregular support with personal care
? access to a particular piece of equipment such as a portable wordprocessing
device, an electronic keyboard or a tape-recorder, or
? minor building alterations such as
improving the acoustic environment56
the LEA may feel that the school
could reasonably be expected to
make such provision from within its
own resources through School
Action Plus. If so, they will then need
to set out their reasons for reaching
this conclusion clearly in a note in
lieu (described in more detail below).
Where the LEA conclude that a change
of placement may be indicated for the
child, even if such a change involves
moving from a mainstream school to a
specialist resource at the same school or
another mainstream school, they should
consider drawing up a statement.
If the LEA conclude that, for example,
the child?s learning difficulties call for:
? regular and frequent direct teaching
by a specialist teacher
? daily individual support from a
learning support assistant
? a significant piece of equipment such
as a closed circuit television or a
computer or CD-ROM device with
appropriate ancillaries and software
? the regular involvement of
non-educational agencies
the LEA may conclude that the
school could not reasonably be
expected to make such provision
within its own resources and that the
nature of the provision suggests that
the LEA should formally identify in a
statement the child?s needs, the full
range of provision to be made and
the review arrangements that will
apply. The LEA?s conclusions will, of
course, depend on the precise
circumstances of each case, taking
into account arrangements for
funding schools in the area.

Actually, doing well in a wisc-iv but very badly in class and says is the best proof you'll get that his education is failing him.

Sorry, ignore the random 'and' in the middle of the sentence. Bedtime due!