help making sense of this please

[claw4]

I obtained a copy of ds's school file.

On school file are two identical 'aims and outcome forms' for speech and language (but not set by a SALT, but school)

1st copy 'to develop vocab skills'
Outcome
odd one out - achieved
Things that go together - needs more work
Semantic links sheets - struggles with this

1st copy 'to develop higher level thinking and reasoning'
Outcome
Continue with this

2nd copy which is exactly the same as the 1st, but without any handwritten comments.
'to develop vocab skills'
Outcome
odd one out - July 2011
Things that go together - July 2011
Semantic links sheets - July 2011

'to develop higher level thinking and reasoning'
Outcome
Achieved 2011

Neither of the sheets say who reviewed or when

Now September 2011 IEP's one of the targets is semantics, which according to the above was achieved in July 2011?

Sounds like a blardy mess to me!

Oh it is Star! Along with their description of IEP targets being met, without actually meeting any of the success criteria.

I am worried a Tribunal, would just say school are not doing their job properly, instead of statement.

They are failing to monitor progress, do i go for needs are too complex, too many areas of need for school to keep track of?

Yes. School need expertise beyond the usual to enable your DS to access an adequate education.

I am torn between whether you should include those targets as evidence of how your ds' needs are so complex it is very difficult to break down and embed relevant or essential targets or whether it is better not to flag up this nonsense at all and stick with the 'poor school, they ARE trying, but DS has not made progress' leaving the first argument as your back up plan should it look like the outcome would be school to improve.

So far, i havent given too much away, apart from not making adequate progress with the help he currently has and school are trying hard and ive provided some evidence of this, but not this evidence.

I am now assuming they will refuse SA, so im preparing my evidence just in case, every last little bit i can find, then i will decide what to leave in and what to take out, once i receive their decision.

Its gets difficult, if school were poor school who were struggling, they would be supporting my request, which they are not.......at the moment. So i might have to show that they are unable to understand his complex needs and need a statement to give them direction. I am also assumming school will continue along the lines, of he IS making progress, so i will need to show why they cannot say that. But i think this can wait until later.

I think you're right about leaving this bit until later. You want the school to say that they are supporting him fantastically .schools and LAs still don't understand the difference between provision and outcomes so will want to list huge amounts they are doing. I is in your best interest to agree that there is a lot of effort going in but it isn't th RIGHT effort or enough.

You know what Star, im sure that is why they try to blame me and get the 'other people' involved iyswim. Its strange how they only ever do this, when i apply for SA. Its just another way of my having to explain myself, another tactic to get info. Strange how they dont give a toss if i am responsible for ds's anxiety the rest of the time!

TBH I'd send these contradictory reportsto the LA and ask them if they are satisfied that DS's school are discharging their statutory duty regarding SN support!

Claw saw your other thread and as you are obviously thinking too, assuming a quick reply means they are not bothering to collect more evidence and you may be back on road to appeal.

We held a lot of this stuff back to the last minute. The LA got annoyed when we sent them a lever arch file on the last day for evidence and said we could have provided much of it earlier, but it went into the bundle with no problems. We argued that until we saw the LA response we didn't realise we would have to rebut so much of what they were saying their lies and didn't want to overload the tribunal with evidence we hadn't expected to be disputed.

I probably would sit tight. Write any appeal on lack of progress etc but not be too specific about false paperwork etc and then pull this stuff out later on. If you go through each inconsistency now and flag it up they will just go through the file and re-write it and say they sent you a draft by mistake.

For an appeal I would be tempted to put targets in a table and just write the target, the date the target was started (if you know or leave blank) and then in the next column just put not met. Very factual and unemotional. Its for them to produce the evidence it has been met. Your evidence from home will be that you have seen no progress.

You can also video lots of this e.g. odd one out, things that go together. May be worth doing this now in case they suddenly start working on it (ok thats unlikely, why do the work when they can just lie)

If they are like DS nursery they always did the same worksheet and never mixed it up so DS would often learn it by heart and then they would say he had learnt something when really he was just predicting the answer on the basis of what they did the previous time. So by getting different materials and videoing you can prove he cannot do it. Then it really does not matter what the school data says as you will have proven he hasn't made progress.

Any appeal will almost certainly be full of lies so I would personally give them lots of rope and then trip them up with their own paperwork when you put in your full evidence after their response.

All you have to put in your statement for appeal is evidence of lack of progress over a sustained period at action plus.

Just out of interest have you got SALT notes to compare?

Agnes, there are no SALT notes, other than 2 reports. She saw ds once after dx was given, as ASD SALT who was part of the team who gave dx said his colleague would be going into school to follow up his recommendations of needing 1:1 support in the classroom, complex language broken down, visual aids etc.

She went in 2010, did formal assessments, all of which ds has never had a problem with, he can score average on formal assessment, but doesnt describe his functional ability ie his grammar etc is fine, but you cant understand a lot of what he says, he rambles, off on a tangent. He also has difficulty processing language and understanding. Although his vocab was 3 years behind and semantics 0.4 centile. She provided diy semantic work sheets to school.

She then did not see ds until over a year later. Did all the same assessments, average scores and apparently his vocab was then 75th centile as was semantics. But she comments about not being able to follow ds's conversation and that he became increasing distressed.

School are saying that ds had 1:1 3 x a week SALT with TA (they also said at Tribunal that he had a speech and language programme designed for him by a SALT and that the targets were termly and that SALT set these. But the above is all that is on school file relating to SALT. And SALT and school have told me SALT did not go into school for over a year.

Wet, i am tempted to that, nothing on school file makes any sense. School have obviousy just filled out IEP targets 4 months after Tribunal. I found the little post it notes of what lies they were going to tell me, stuck to photocopies of school file!

I hate all this game playing, i like straight, honest talking. I tried that once before, it got me a NIL. Seems you have to play the game.

Agnes the bit "For an appeal I would be tempted to put targets in a table and just write the target, the date the target was started (if you know or leave blank) and then in the next column just put not met. Very factual and unemotional. Its for them to produce the evidence it has been met. Your evidence from home will be that you have seen no progress"

This is what i thought last time, i provided blank IEP targets, with success criteria lowered, and targets repeated. Which to me and anyone else i should think, would mean evidence of targets not being met.

But school said that these targets had been met, without providing any evidence of it. Seems the onus was on me to prove further that these targets, hadnt been met, rather than school to prove they had.

After Tribunal i wrote to school and asked for evualated copies of the IEP targets which they claimed had been met. They provided things such as success criteria for ds to express which moves he feels comfortable with during PE 5 times. Outcome 'he enjoys handwriting'. Targets are then removed.

Ds has difficulties in every area you can think of ie sensory, handwriting, attention, expressive language, verbal comp, social, emotional etc, etc.

His current IEP (which is now 3 months out of date) addresses 2 areas, handwriting (which apparently according to school during Tribunal, he has no difficulties with) and semantics which according to school, he achieved the target in July, almost a year ago.

It is going to be very difficult for me to give evidence of lack of progress and unmet needs, without also proving without even trying, that school are crap.

The school aren't crap. They are trying their hardest with the resources they have but your DS is not fully understood and his needs so complex that they are having a hard time figuring out targets and success criteria. They are getting confused and cannot keep up with the level of interagency working that is necessary.

That is your argument!

Bless em!

You're not questioning their motivation, intention or honesty. You are pointing out their inability, lack of knowledge, training and funding!

Cheers Star, that is what i am struggling with, i have all the evidence here in black and white, its just knowing how to use it to my best advantage.

I have written that down and shall keep it in front of me when typing, to remind myself, when i start to get sidetracked.

I did ask school to get targetted programmes set up, along with PP before i applied for SA. All they did was gang up on me, in agreeing that 'not everything is measurable'. Despite social skills previously being an unmet target on his IEP and 2 motor skill checklists with loads of unmet targets being on school file! so 'not everything is measurable' seems to mean piss off we are not going to target areas where we know he wont meet the targets

So if i follow Agnes advice of targets in a table for tribunal, do i also have to supply the evidence of this to back up what i am saying? Or can i leave supplying this evidence until a later date?

Tbh, I'd hold back as much as you can get away with!

Well i should get a decision week after next, i should start taking bets on the outcome!

The meeting i had with school the other day, kinda gave it away 'tribunal already decided this help wasnt needed' and 'all these assessments are causing ds's anxieties'. Still i followed it up with a letter of 'clarification', so hopefully this might have changed their minds. Strangely about 2 days after this meeting is when i got the letter from the LA, acknowledging my request and getting it done in 4 weeks.

So my letter either gave them a kick up the arse or they thought dont even bother. I know which my money would be on!

I dunno. Tbh it could go either way. They will know you're a veteren. But they are also motivated to delay.

If they think you are likely to win this time they might need to give in early in order to demonstrate to a tribunal for content, their 'reasonableness'.

Just try to deal with the concrete though. What you know is all you can go on and second guessing is really pointless, except for preparing in advance to move quickly if the news is bad.

Cheers Star, i really appreciate all your advice and the time you and others take to help and support me. Id be lost without you guys