Moose here again. Ok, my brain is not functioning. Help! How do I proceed here?

[moosemama]

Hi

I will apologise now for the length of this, need to get it all straight in my head and could really do with advice on the best way forward.

I am sending myself round and round in circles trying to work out what my next move should be.

Anyone who was on the Friday thread last week probably already knows my latest boring tale of woe, but for those that don't:

Despite the request for SA etc being from me and not the school, LEA called the SENCO to complain that my amendments were unworkable and too extensive and to ask her to speak to me and get me to change them.

Went in to basically be told that the LEA are refusing to quantify and/or specify training/qualifications of personnel working with ds, even on developing his emotional literacy and working on social skills and language. They also told me that the statement I produced is too prescriptive and if I persist with it, no school in the borough will take him (subtle threat implied that that includes them).

They also tried to tell me that he has miraculously got over almost all his issues since the statementing process started (application only went in at the end of November and SA was finished in Feb) and no longer needs the support the professionals said he did. SO apparently my ds has been completely cured of having autism since February then! They even backtracked on saying he needs a laptop full time - when it was them that requested it in their SA report!

Finally managed to wheedle out of them that his statement comes with no funding and the bottom line (not stated directly of course) is that they don't want to stump up to properly support him. All the support he has had so far has been free, as in, no charge to the school.

They also dropped the bombshell that as soon as his statement is final, he loses his 1:1 autism teacher, who he has seen once a week for about 18 months now and has built up a really good relationship with - because they don't work with statemented children. Instead they would offer advice and support to a TA - but they refuse that to accept that the TA/LSA should be trained and experienced in working with children who have an ASD. So no matter what happens, the provision he will get will be of a lower standard than what he currently receives. Apparently this is due to the Inclusion Team's funding and policies. I was then informed that 'coincidentially' the school need his ASD teacher to work with another younger child in the school (despite the fact ds only sees her once a week for 45 minutes). The EP's report indicated that this session should continue and I had also been told by his ASD teacher that she is keeping his case next year for secondary transition and she had told her bosses that it would be detrimental to his mental health if she didn't. School contacted her boss, who then said his teacher cannot make that call and he won't be seeing her anymore once his statement is final.

Absolutely ridiculous, how on earth did they come up with a policy for involvement that says that once a clear need has been identified for a child via 1:1 contact and then proven through SA they then remove that support and replace it with someone less qualified and experienced. It makes no logical sense at all.

This all happened the day before the half term holiday started.

First stop was to try and call Parent Partnership, as coincidentally had been told good things about them by another parent only the night before. Their line was dead and obviously they aren't their in holidays.

Next call was to our EP, who is lovely and really 'for' ds. Unfortunately she said she could not say that the emotional literacy sessions can only be carried out specifically by an inclusion teacher, but she did agree that the school was wrong that this role could be carried out by a TA with just one day's ASD awareness training, as per all staff in the school. She suggested I look into what training is available for TA/LSAs and gave me a couple of numbers to call (again can't reach them till after the holiday) and said I should make some concessions where I am happy to on the statement and then ask them to re-issue, then when they re-issue ask for a meeting with everyone around one table to thrash out a final statement we all agree on.

She's great and agreed that dh and I have been more than reasonable, not asked for too much or for anything that ds doesn't need and isn't mentioned in the SA reports and have worked hard to keep a good working relationshio with all parties. She also said that, whether the school like it or not, the SA was carried out by professionals such as herself and the reports stand as a record of ds's needs, they cannot change that without going to AR and asking for reassessment, which obviously they can't do as the blooming statement isn't even finalised yet and even if they did the professionals would prove them wrong.

Unbelievably, the SENCO started the meeting by telling us that we are asking for Gold Standard support for ds 'when he is only entitled to an adequate education'. Dh nearly fell off his chair and jumped in saying they are crazy if they think what we are asking for is Gold Standard. If anything we have gone for the bare minimum in order to get the statement through in time for naming a secondary. All we're asking for is a total of 5 hours LSA contact, split into 4 daily sessions, to deal with organisational stuff and feelings diary entries, 45 minutes of ASD Teacher contact and a weekly social skills group! Hardly gold standard.

So, what do I do now. We are outside the timescale for being able to ask for a meeting - ie 15 days from when they issued the proposed. Judging by their behaviour so far, I seriously doubt they are going to issue another proposed statement, which leaves me with nothing to appeal and/or request a meeting against.

Would I be leaving myself wide open if I call the LEA and tell them that I am not happy to recind my amendments and therefore they either finalise as is, so I can (and will) appeal or I would like a meeting now to sort it all amicably so that they can finalise?

Thing is, during the meeting with the SENCO she basically dangled the carrot of saying if we don't finalise soon, we will miss the opportunity to name a secondary and will have to go through the mainstream admissions process - although part of me thinks that in the current climate that might not be a bad thing with all our options being academies. Apparently she's had the forms through for all the other statemented children already - or so she said.

I feel like I am just spinning my wheels here, not being able to make logical sense of how best to move forward effectively. I have been in bed all holiday bar Monday and Tuesday, when I made myself go out with the family so that the boys' holiday wasn't ruined by my health and my neuro symptoms are getting worse by the day, but I have to get all this sorted out as having it hanging over me is just causing more and more stress.

I've already done that though Wet. I told them over the phone that I wanted a lot of amends, all to do with specification and quantification. They said they would definitely issue a second proposed and I have since had this confirmed, when I rang up and my SO wasn't there, but an admin assistant told me that there is a big note on our file saying 'second proposed to be issued'.

Then, after giving me only 10 days to make and submit my amends (as the 15 days started the day the posted it ) they did nothing at all with them for 4 weeks. Dh called to ask what was happening, as I was ill and they said they hadn't even looked at them. Then a fortnight later we get a call from the school saying the LEA/SO had contacted them and was very concerned and would she speak to us and get us to change our amendments. They have made every single amendment in part 2, but refused the whole of part 3.

Are you saying I should start from scratch, write a completely new statement and suggest that to see what the LEA do?

Just trying to understand the chronology here.

So they issues a 2nd Proposed Statement?

You submitted your amendments within 10 days of receiving it? (Actually the 15 days runs from the date you receive it as in law an offer cannot be accepted until it's received).

They then sat on your amendments for 4 weeks?

Then you were invited to a meeting at school arranged by the LA (what date was that because I would count that as a meeting with the LA).

Who told you the changes you wanted to Part 3 had been refused - school or LA?

Right - I looked back at the Friday night thread.

The meeting you had at school was on 31 May so you are still within the 15 days for asking for another meeting - although I doubt that would achieve anything.

No, I've only had one proposed statement, for which I was given 10 days to refuse or amend. (I argued the point over the 15 days but they were adamant and it was academic by then because I'd already written my amendments). I had also met with the SENCO and run through pretty much all my changes and told her that I wanted to specify and quantify - so she did know I was going to do it, but now denies it. I did have to make a few extra changes that we hadn't discussed, because they issued the proposed and our deadline over the Easter holiday, but bearing in mind the fact I didn't actually have to discuss my amendments with the school at all, I figured I'd been accommodating enough.

(Incidentally, they missed their date to issue the proposed by a day and wouldn't have posted it then if I hadn't called to ask where it was, because it still wasn't ready to post out the morning after the deadline.)

I called our Statementing Officer to ask if a meeting would be better, given the amount of changes I wanted to make and was told no, it wasn't necessary, as they would issue a second proposed statement after addressing my amendments.

They then sat on my amendments for 4 weeks and dh called to ask why we hadn't received the second proposed statement because the deadline for the final statement was coming up. They had a go at him and said they didn't have to stick to any deadlines now because we had made so many amendments (blatant lie, but he didn't know that).

Then another 2 weeks later (so 6 weeks since I sent in the amendments) on the Thursday before we broke up, the SENCO sidles up to dh in the playground and says the LEA have called and are really concerned and could we come in for an emergency meeting that day. His instinct was to say no, but I said I wanted it dealt with asap and as it was almost the holiday didn't want to wait a week to find out what the problem was. The LEA weren't at the meeting, just the SENCO and for a short while his CT, who had blatantly been brought in to tell me that ds has come on so far that he no longer needs the support outlined in the SA reports, including what the school themselves had asked for.

The SENCO told us that the LEA had refused to make the changes to part 3, as she felt we obviously didn't understand the implications of what we were requesting and needed to have it explained to us - which is why they asked her to meet with us.

I spoke to the EP on the Friday before half term, but couldn't reach anyone else, so have had to put it on the backburner for the holiday week.

The deadline for finalising the statement (based on our initial SA request and according to SENCOP) is Tuesday 12 June - my blooming birthday!

The SENCO apparently rang the SO to tell her that dh and I would have another look at part 3 and make some changes then resubmit and that's where we are currently. SO only works Thursdays and Fridays, which kind of adds to the whole mess.

'The SENCO told us that the LEA had refused to make the changes to part 3, as she felt we obviously didn't understand the implications of what we were requesting and needed to have it explained to us - which is why they asked her to meet with us.'

Sorry. I know this is really frustrating for you and a child's life is at the centre but rofl!

It's precisely because you DO know what you are asking for that they are getting all hot under the collar.

So you're in a stand-off with the LA. They won't change Part 3. You are reluctant to ask them to finalise as that means a Tribunal.

Stalemate.

Meanwhile you are unable to look seriously at secondary provision because you don't know what the provision required will be as stated in the Statement.

This can't go on. You need to get this sorted. If you don't have the fight in you for SENDIST then just accept the Proposed Statement. That would be sad as it wouldn't be your DS's best interests to do that.

But in order to break through this deadlock you need to get the LA to treat you seriously - and they are not doing this at the moment. I think it was actually quite contemptuous of the LA to ask school to deal with you rather than responding to you or meeting you itself. That's why you need to get the LA to understand you will not be treated in this way.

I would write to the LA one last time.

I would send this - if anyone else wants to amend it please do:

Dear (Case Worker)

I wrote to you on (date) detailing my amendments to the Proposed Statement I received on (date).

On 31 May 2012 I attended a meeting at (school name) that had been arranged by you to discuss the Proposed Statement.

At that meeting I was informed that you have refused to make any of the amendments I required to the provision stated in Part 3 of the Proposed Statement.

I have enclosed a copy of the Proposed Statement detailing the changes that I still require.

If you are unable to accept these amendments, please issue the Final Statement without delay so that I may initiate my appeal to SENDIST.

Good. Well I hope your ammendments add expensive additional provision which you can then 'negotiate down' at appeal/mediation.

Star, that's what I said to dh - if we didn't know what we were talking about, they wouldn't be so rattled.

Wet, thank you. I am going to discuss sending a letter along those lines to them - we need to have a serious discussion this weekend about whether or not he will step forward and help me through tribunal. It's not going to be fun though, because I just quickly ran through what we've been saying and he just said, why threaten appeal when you haven't tried meeting with them first?

^^

We x-posted so please ignore the above post.

I didn't realise that you has not has a 2nd Propsed Statement.

Dear (Case Worker)

I wrote to you on (date) detailing my amendments to the Proposed Statement I received on (date). I was advised that you required time to consider these amendments and would be issuing an Amended Proposed Statement.

On 31 May 2012 I attended a meeting at (school name) that had been arranged by you to discuss the Proposed Statement with the school SENCO.

At that meeting I was informed that you have refused to make any of the amendments I required to the provision stated in Part 3 of the Proposed Statement.

I have yet to receive the Amended Propsed Statement you advised would be issued, so I have enclosed a copy of the Proposed Statement reiterating the changes to Part 3 that are required in order to specify and quantify support.

If you are unable to accept these amendments, please issue the Final Statement without delay so that I may initiate my appeal to SENDIST.

Thank you Wet.

That's kind of what I had in mind.

'why threaten appeal when you haven't tried meeting with them first? '

1. Because the meeting won't be any good unless they are assured you would appeal if they don't pull their finger out.

2. Because although appealing seems like a scary threat to you. It isn't to them. It seperates those with whom they will have a go at negotiating from those who they will not.

3. Because it shows that you have some backing somewhere, that you have spoken to someone, that you are aware of your rights and have some knowledge of the law.

4. Because if you don't do it this way, you'll be appealing anyway, but with a huge delay built in.

Ooo thank you Star. Now I have all the ammunition I need to er, .... persuade dh.

Would dh listen if SOS:sen or similar told him just appeal (rather than his missus and a bunch of Internet strangers).

You may feel you have Swiss cheese in your head but the people you face have brains that are all holes and no cheese at all. Gold standard indeed. They're lucky you're chasing for the basics rather than aggressively demanding everything he needs.

Go on, I dare you to wild card them and write an appendix of 'standard but desirable' supplementary criteria to print out on gold bordered paper.

The weird thing is, that during our appeal process I became more and more knowledgable about the law and about Ds' needs. I got help from parents who showed me their tribunal-won statements and EPs etc.

The truth is, that the provision I got as tge Result of appeal actually turned out to cost a heck of a lot more that what I ever asked for at the beginning.

But that's the process for you

Nothing to add really Moose, you have been given some good advice, other than you have come this far, so your brain has served you very well so far.

Dont give up at the last hurdle, you can do this.

Moose

If this is indeed the LEA I am thinking of then what has happened to you is really par for the course with regards to them. They are truly awful and do put parents through the wringer.

Appeal to the SEND tribunal now; it will show the LEA that you mean business here.

What does your DH need persuading about?.

Parts 2 and 3 are the most important parts of this whole document so it is imperative that they are right in all ways. Your son will be in secondary school for the next 5 years so it is important that his statement doc is watertight; he deserves nothing less and you are his best and only advocate here.

You have been given excellent advice here and I can only echo that you should crack on and go to appeal and not taste time trying to persuade these charlatans. They will drag it out as long as they can as that saves them money.

it is additional effort to appeal but it doesn't mean for certain you will get caught in an actual hearing.. There is plenty of time to negotiate after that

Just catching up with this, moose. I haven't experience of appeal but have with the secondary school thing.

The LA's timescales for DC with statements are just for their convenience, so those DC can be included in the normal admission procedure and don't have to be admitted in addition to everyone else. It's not law, it's just local policy and while my LA have a similar policy, DC who named their school in June, a few months before the Sept, still were required to be admitted. Watch out for old style academies, but those created more recently, under the Tory scheme for instance, still have to admit DC with statements unless they can show it would be detrimental to the education of others.

Everyone's advice looks good.

Thank you so much folks, it really does help to read all your support and advice.

I come with good news for a change. Dh and I had a long talk last night and he is now happy that we should ask them to finalise so we can appeal. (Thank you Star for your excellent list of why we should appeal rather than hold yet another meeting.)

I have been going through the whole statement and appendices - again - this morning have had picked up a couple of little gems from the outreach, EP and even the school's reports that back up what we are asking for, so am now trying to produce some sort of document that cross references all the most important points in the appendices and how they back up the things we have put in, but the LA and school are objecting to.

I feel much better about it now, I am pretty sure there is enough there for us to have a really good case on appeal and it doesn't feel anywhere near as scary or complicated as it did. In fact, dh said he wished he'd recorded me ranting explaining it to him last night, as he thought I summed it up perfectly and it would have been gold-dust in terms of what to say at the hearing. (Not sure whether that deserves a or a emoticon.)

We are going to sit together this evening and compose a letter to the SENCO confirming everything that was said at the meeting and another asking the LEA to either make our amendments or finalise so that we can appeal.

I feel much more in control and less stressy and panicky about it and we have agreed that if we do end up at tribunal we will probably borrow the money to get FS involved rather than shelling out for a solicitor, as from what we can see we are in a pretty strong position already and she will probably be able to help us make it as strong as possible.

I bloody love MNSN, you are all an inspiration and have really lifted me. to all of you.

Now if anyone could help us work out what to do about our dying vw camper that ds1 is super attached to, but dh found out last night needs about £15,000 worth of resto work done on it - that would be lovely.

Good on you and dh for sorting it . I have the same problem as you when i look at what i need to be focussing on, there just seems to be so much, i dont know where to start!

Once i actually get started, its not as complicated as i first thought (and with a few posts on MN) it really helps to get my thinking straight and get my head around it.

Now for camper...................i swear by bluetack and sellotape!

Wish you the best of luck.

Thank you claw. It's a nightmare isn't it, especially when the reports are badly written, not numbered or properly organised and anything but logical in terms of order. I have cracked out a new set of highlighters this morning and now have technicolour reports!

As for the camper, I fear we have been doing the bluetac and sellotape thing for a bit too long, hence the current problem. Darned thing even needs a new roof! Dh bought it just after ds1 was born, so he's never known life without it. Sad really, as we have completely restored all our other vans ourselves, but since having the dcs, simply don't have the time, energy or cash they demand.

Apparently, if we tart it up we could get a few grand for it and then perhaps look around for something that needs less work. Unfortunately ds1 can't even cope with us talking about the vaguest possibility of this happening. We have a great vw mechanic guy who's given it a thorough check and said it's safe to drive (he wouldn't let us drive it if it wasn't, as he's very serious about that sort of thing). The chassis is the best thing about it, but it needs such a lot of bodywork, that whilst we can get it through this year's MOT, there's no way it will get through another next year. Bad timing, as ds1 will be in the middle of secondary transition, so not a great time to be messing with his comfort and security.

Worst case scenario is that we have to find some dry storage for it, so that at least it's not getting any worse and ds1 knows we still have it (much like all those things that are "in the loft", iykwim ).

Ah, who knows, maybe we'll win the lottery tonight.

Moose, I just wanted to say that the delaying and messing around sounds like my LEA in a lot of ways, and that things did not really get moving until about 3 weeks before my tribunal date. There was a lot of messing around before then too, and I was hopeful of sorting things out without resorting to tribunal. Sadly all the advice I received on here proved to be fairly accurate, in that until you do appeal they don't take you seriously and that it seems that they don't do anything until the last moment ( I suspect they are v. short staffed and you don't reach the top of the pile until your date for appeal is almost upon them).

I wrote to the LEA saying that under s8.37 provision must normally be quantified, and the following was dragged from various sources - including the DofE advice on writing statements

Following from the definition of SEP in EA s312 and the Schedule to the SEN regulations (which prescribe the format for a Statement) Part 3
must describe all aspects of the provision which differ from the provision normally made in mainstream schools in the area. Thus:
? Placement in a different year group: AB v North Somerset [2010] UKUT 8.
? Different class sizes: H ?v- Leicestershire [2000] ELR 471.
? Staff qualifications/experience: e.g. ?teacher who is experienced in working with pupils who have significant learning difficulties
and autism/communication disorders?: R ?v- Wandsworth ex parte M [1998] ELR 424.
? Where small group work is involved, the size of the group, the length and frequency of the sessions: L ?v- Clarke and Somerset
[1998] ELR 129.
? The need for and amount of 1:1 work: L ?v- Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 129.
? Input from other professionals, such as sessions of speech therapy: R ?v- Harrow ex parte M [1997] FCR 761.

Our original statement gave the equivalent of 8 hours a week ( a banding), and we asked for 21 once we quantified everything. We settled on 15 hours ( TBH we always thought we wouldn't get more) with no bandings mentioned anywhere in the statement.

Ask for the stars, knowing you will probably settle for the moon.

Thanks alison.

That's pretty much what I'm expecting. I figure I will take it steady getting all the evidence sorted, as the LEA have to finalise before we can even send off the appeal papers. Am going to take the advice of whichever wonderfully wise MNSN person who recommended approaching it like a part time job and not letting it encroach on the rest of your life. So I am going to allocate time each week to work on it and then try and put it out of my mind (yeah right ) rather than let it spin around my head 24/7.

You are right about the short staffing. We only have two named officers and between them they don't appear to make up one full time post. On top of that a lot of staff in that department have just had to apply for their own jobs. Some of what has happened so far is deliberate, of that I'm sure, but some of it is just down to plain old human error, inefficiency and lack of funds. Same everywhere I suppose.

I have got a couple of those case law examples already, plus one where SENDIST specifically told our LEA that they had to go back and specify and quantify provision. Also have a few others that I have completely forgotten at this moment, but fortunately with my shonky memory, have safely filed away.

I am going to call IPSEA on Monday (keeping everything crossed that I can get through) because our particular LEA has got form with them and they've already gone to the Sec of State for Education about them not specifying and quantifying once. IPSEA believe they have an unstated blanket policy, but Sec of State got them to investigate themselves and of course they found to case to answer.