Preparing in advance for Tribunal

[claw4]

Would really appreciate your input on this IEP target and outcome.

Target - writing to be able to answer questions after discussion with a talk partner.

During literacy when questions are asked. Ds to discuss with his talk partner and decide on an answer. Then ds to be the one to answer the question.

Success - When ds does this 3 times a week, independently.

Evaluation - Target met. He has gained in confidence in talking in both reading and writing.

What is the point of this target? Ds will just give the answer, that his talk partner tells him to give.

How will ds be answering questions independently if he is discussing it with a talk partner?

Am i just picking holes, for the sake of it or is this a really stupid IEP target?

If the talk partner is a child I can't see it working. If it is a TA then if they are asking him what he thinks and why so he can explain himself and come to the answer then maybe. However the target is not clear on this so as a result I don't think that it is a helpful target.
Also success should be CONSISTENTLY 3 times a week - not 3 times in a week once.

The problem is that it IS a stupid target. You are quite right and the evaluation doesn't make sense.

The problem I foresee is that there is no law to say that meeting of IEP targets can't be expressed as a matter of professional opinion.

In 5 settings I have never seen an IEP target that was SMART. The tribunal might think you are picking holes and getting personal. SO! Don't complain about the crapness. Point out that the schools understanding of your child's complex needs makes it impossible for them to set meaningful targets that are independent of the bias of their confusion. They are not certain what they are actually looking for.

Talk partner is a child. 'TA in room to prompt ds when necessary and to check he has his answer ready'

They might as well sit ds on the other kids shoulders like a parrot and TA might as well poke him with a stick to make sure he repeats at the right time.

I thought the idea was for ds to come up with some ideas of his own. Which he cannot do. His difficult is he either doesnt understand what is being asked of him or he copies someone elses ideas.

Oh i wont complain about it, i just like straight talk, which i can do on here. Its far easier to say to you guys its crap, rather than PC talk. For Tribunal it will be sugar coated and wrapped as they like it.

Thats is exactly what they doing Star, they are setting targets without actually understanding WHY they are setting them.

In fact the target has obviously been set literally from reports of experts.

It has been observed numerous times that when ds does answer a question, its a tangent, because he hasnt understood the question.

So area they shoud be working on his verbal comprehension of language and following the recommendations of ds having 1:1 support to break down language so he can understand. None of which they are doing, because they think he doesnt need it.

Not giving the responsibility to another child.

Well then that again is WHY your DS needs more support and input from experts than he is getting. The school need to be shown/supported to interpret the expert reports because your ds' needs are so complex as to cause confusion.

Again, they are doing their best but don't have the expertise in-house.

Btw, did they ever give you an explanation for changing their minds and going against you last time?

Another target is for ds to be able to produce an amount of work which is comparable to his oral ability!

Seen as previous target was set because he obviously has difficult with his oral ability, i wonder how this is measured.

No Star, they didnt. I also asked them to clarify quite a few other things in writing after Tribunal. They eventually wrote to me after another reminder, 3 months after my first letter, but avoided answering the bits they didnt want to.

I also requested a meeting with them 6 months ago and asked again for copies of all the things they claimed to have during Tribunal, like copies of programmes and advice from all these external agencies. They told me 'not everything is measurable'

They gave ds 20 hours of 1:1 when he first started and were backing my request. They never told me they were taking this away. I found this out in the evidence which i got a copy of. They took it away because 'his difficulties were only on paper'. Im guessing this is when they changed their minds about supporting me.

They requested their first ever meeting with me, the other week, only to make accusations based on their opinion again. Im not counting on their support

Thanks Star, i am scribbling down all your wording.

Oh Claw, I'm Just a novice trying to figure it all out like you with a small advantage of being a bit more detatched in your case.

I'm a bit scared of the responsibility of my words being used. I prefer to think that my posts just help posters figure out other/alternative angles iyswim and also break things down.

I do hope it helps but I am by no means any kind of expert and have been shafted myself!

You a novice, never!

Its very difficult when being shafted and accused of all kinds of things, not to get sidetracked in the blame game, even subconciously. Your wording helps to keep me focussed on whats important and whats not. Its extremely helpful. Cheers

Yes. It IS hard a) not mention the past shaftings and lies, even when tormented with them in meetings b) not to be defensive, c) not to get purposely sidetracked and waste meeting time resulting in no focus or outcome, d)not to think of each interaction as your one and only chance to put things right.

But get good at the above and you become a terrifyingly tenacious opponent.

But you know, i've learned how to do the above, and you have too, although I do think it is helpful to run things by on MN to get your logic sorted and face some challenge before the real thing!

Im getting there Star, i sat there in a meeting the other week, while being accused of all sorts and replied ok, thank you for your opinion. I even told them that my SA request was not a criticism of school, as they seem to be taking it very personally. I think some parents would have told her where to get off at that point! I didnt even feel like doing that, i just sat in amazement that someone could be so ill informed, so unable to understand a report or maybe she hadnt even read a report, that is how it felt.

I then came home and wrote a calm, polite, letter to clarify a few 'inaccuracies' and quoted some of the report at them. Them blaming me, is just more evidence of their inability to understand ds's difficulties or an expert report. I got my 15 year old ds, who has no idea of the SN world, to read the report i have and asked his opinion. I asked him a few questions about it and even he got the gist of it.

I am turning things back on them, without having to blame or expose lies or even become defensive. This was one of my mistakes first time round, hopefully i have learnt my lesson.

Running things by MN, really does help. I might think i have it just right, then someone will comment and i can see room for improvement.

Thanks again.

Sounds like ou handled that meeting fantastically!

You kept your eye on the goal and refused to be sidetracked or give them an excuse to end the meeting early.

There is nothing to be gained for your Ds by you swearing at them, even though it might make you feel better - it isn't about you iyswim! You're an advocate for your child and have to have a 'professional advocate demeanour'!

[naive emoticon]
Wouldn't a useless IEP be proof he needs input from people who know what they're doing (ie via a statement)?

Maria, that is what im hoping, but it could go either way, it could prove that the support hasnt been effective as its been implemented in the wrong way, so school havent done all they can and need to do more.

But if i word it in the right way, as Star says, it will go the right way.