statement - what does it mean (other than being probably crap)?

[crapstatement]

hi, regularish on here but namechanged.

received DD's proposed statement - arrived in good tradition on a saturday

DD has asd (not HF), severe s&l issues, sensory difficulties. she will go to a resourced unit at MS school and spend about 1h/ day in the unit, the rest in MS classroom.

statement is good on SLT provision. but there is nothing else, no other objectives, nothing. and a 1:1 Ta has not even been mentioned

what worries me most is the following?
It says under the heading: "Provision to be made by School"
- The curriculum should be approbiatly differentiated to take account of DD's SEN.

• School's provision map should be reviewed and revised to identify and secure effective provision to meet DD's SEN.

• Reasonable adustments should be made by the school to help DD to be included.

• A personalised plan should be devised under the supervision of the headteacher, and in conjunction with parents and carers, to address DD's needs, as outlined in the appendices (i.e. SALT and EP report)

WTF does this mean? i understand that if I do not understand it, then it cannot be good. does it ineffect mean school needs to decide what Dd needs?

thanks

Is it the proposed or the final version. If it's proposed then just rewrite it so that kermit the frog could understand what it means & send it back.

This for me, was by far and away the worst stage of the whole process & sadly it took a Tribunal to get an appropriately written statement. I'd naively assumed getting the authority to agree to a statement would be the worst part.

that is the proposed version.

Proposed statement needs to be rejected.

SALT needs to be in Part 2 as well as 3, ensure it is in both parts of this statement document.

All items under the provision made by school are too vague and thus not worth the paper its written on. That part certainly needs a proper rewrite. Support should be both specified and quantified properly; not poor like this because of devolved funding issues (funding is not your problem btw). Basically they're saying to the school, "here's some money, now off you trot and sort this person's needs out".

Ultimately you may have to go to a SEND Tribunal for the LEA to properly comply.

I would look at IPSEA's website www.ipsea.org.uk for information and contact them asap.

thanks attila. that's what i feared it meant. Salt is in part 2 and 3 but it is also in part 5 and 6. it also says that provision to meet the needs identified in part 5 [asd and s&l issues] should be assessed by our local PCT.
is this ok? gosh, all so confusing.

ASD stuff needs to be in part 2 & 3.

Reject & rewrite! (IPSEA should be able to help or the NAS).

Whatever is 'outlined in the appendices' in terms of recommendations and need should be in parts 2 and 3 and then quantified and specified (even if it isn't in the reports)

Cross SALT out of 5 and 6. Being there as well confuses th issue.

None of us here are especially outraged at your statement I shoukdn't think.

It's part of the necessary journey for everyone these days.

Oh, and LAs like to tell you what it MEANS when you don't understand it as if you can't read or are not a 'professional' so don't have the ability to understand that 'school to support child' is technical terminology for 'will receive full-time 1:1 with helicopter trips once a week!'

But basically, if that IS what they MEAN, then that is what they should write in language you understand, even if you DO struggle with language. There is an onus on LAs to communicate in plain English.

"Salt is in part 2 and 3 but it is also in part 5 and 6. it also says that provision to meet the needs identified in part 5 [asd and s&l issues] should be assessed by our local PCT".

Your LEA are trying it on. It all means nothing.

SALT needs to be deleted from parts 5 and 6. I would seek independent advice from IPSEA or SOSSEN about the wording of parts 2 and 3 as they will tell you what is should be saying.

As we have a tribunal fast approaching and I am meeting my LEA next week to try to resolve the wording of DS's statement, I was reading all the help posted previously last night looking for legal reasons to back some of what I wanted.

There is lots of advice on the thread called "tribunal fast approaching"

The advice from ACE avoiding "weasel words" is good here - download the document on the right and read it.

Also the case examples from IPSEA here are also useful.

Section 8.37 of the SEN code of practice details that a statement bust be specified in terms of time, who, where and when, how often etc. download from here.

what you need to ensure is that all the problems are listed one by one in part 2 - take them from all the professional reports ( and to help the LEA reference them -ie page xx of YY report (this will speed it up for you as I didn't and they came back to ask where I got all my info from instead of doing it themselves) and then make sure that they are all listed in part 3 of the statement to tie up with each point in part 2. Make sure that they say who will provide the help, when, for how long and how often and what training/expertise they need. Also make sure that there is OT included for the sensory issues and provision for the OT to regularly see your DC and revise programme as necessary etc.

Good luck

what are the implications of listing s&l issues under part 5 and 6?

thanks, alison, for the link to the other thread. will have a read later on.

I was expecting something like that based in my experience with the LA in the past - so no surprise and I am more than happy to take it all the way. Think star is right, this is part of the journey these days .

will try ipsea and NAS next week. thanks for all your imput.

oh, would you just reject the statement as crap or would you write it up from scratch as there is nothing but SALT rewrite it?

Well VERY broadly speaking, health are allowed to say that a child needs a provision, but that they aren't prepared to deliver it for cost reasons. Part 5 and 6 leave it up to health to deliver (or not).

The LA on the other hand HAS to fund EDUCATIONAL provision to enable he child to receive an adequate education, despite the costs.

So if SALT is a health (and therefore not in part 3) need, the LA is not responsible for delivering or funding it, and health can provide it at their discretion.

In simple terms: Parts 5 and 6 are not legally binding, Parts 2 & 3 are.

LEAs often try to put vague waffle like 'input from SALT and OT' in Part 5. It is a complete fudge on their part. ALL necessary support should be quantified and specified (so, 'X amount of hours, X times a week, to take place at X place and delivered by X professional') and put in Part 3 of the Statement, and should link back directly to the needs of the child stated in detail in Part 2.

Dont panic. Rewrite it and send it back your amended version with a rejection letter. This is posturing on their part. They are trying to give you a minimum evel of support and hoping you wont notice. But they don't know the power of MN