Massive Ranting Moose Post - Bloody LEA, Bloody School, Bloody Statements! AAARGH!

[moosemama]

Okay, so, as you probably know, we had been chasing the LEA to either issue a second/amended proposed statement or finalise so that we could appeal. We were expecting a finalised to push us to either appeal or drop out.

Last Thursday we received an amended proposed. Surprised, we assumed this meant that the LEA were still willing to negotiate.

Been pretty poorly over the last week, so only got around to calling them today to ask for a meeting (EP had said she was willing to attend a meeting to clarify her report and help get the wording in part 3 tighter) and ...... they said no.

First she said there's no time because she is off on holiday in a week's time. Then she said there would be no point anyway, because they have no intention of making any further amendments.

Basically, she said they will only specify and quantify what has been specifically specified and quantified in the SA reports. I pointed out that the SA reports are all produced by LEA employees and having spoken to them they told me it's 'not their job to specify/quantify to that level of detail, only to identify the type of provision required (reading between the lines - we've been told we aren't allowed to ). So, the LEA tell their EPs etc not to specify or quantify, which in and of itself isn't illegal, but, then they refuse to specify or quantify their statements other 'because it's not specified or quantified in the reports'. So they have effectively circumvented the blanket policy thing by laying the blame at report, rather than statement level and stating there isn't enough evidence in the reports.

She also said "we don't quantify in terms of time, frequency" to which I said well that is a blanket policy then and I believe that's illegal.

I suggested mediation - she said we could if we wanted to, but no point as they aren't going to shift and will not specify or quantify any further.

I explained that things have moved on since we made our amendments and we now have a clearer idea of the type of provision available at secondary, so would in fact like to reword some of our rewords, so-to-speak. Explained that the tight level of quantification in one particular area is in effect obsolete at secondary, so we would welcome their help, along with the EP, in getting that bit right and that what we would like is to sit down together and agree something that works for us all and still provides ds with legally protected support. She said no - that there is no time for a meeting and they aren't going to change anything anyway, so no point. (Stuck-record springs to mind. )

Lots more was said and it was a resonable and calm conversation - up until the point I embarrassed myself by starting to cry. She was surprised to hear some of the things the school have said and done and that I had had to fight to get ds recognised and supported by the school in the first place. She was ok really and we had a frank and reasonable discussion, but she still isn't going to budge.

Oh - and of course I was told we can appeal if we want to, but we will lose because there is simply no evidence in the reports to support the quantification that we are asking for.

She said we had to trust the school to provide the support in the statement and that the school had no choice anyway once a statement had been issued - I pointed out that I no longer trust the school, given the things that have gone on, which I explained to her earlier.

We discussed the qualifications of the person who will be working with ds on emotional literacy and she said the statement does say someone with 'knowledge and understanding of ASD' and therefore the person doing this would have to be suitably experienced. I explained I had discussed this with the EP after the school stated categorically that they wouldn't be employing anyone or sending anyone on additional training courses and that the 1 day whole school awareness all staff attended last year was enough. EP agreed that the awareness day wasn't enough and whoever it is should definitely have some specific training in anxiety and emotional literacy in ASD. The school have already said they aren't going to train someone up and the statement allows them to do this - therefore the statement is not sufficiently specified or quantified. SO's answer? It's not clear in the report, so we won't be changing it. AAARGH! I pointed out that their own EP, who wrote the bloody report agreed it wasn't clear enough and wanted to attend a meeting to straighten it out, but she said it doesn't matter, it's not in the report so they don't have to include it in the statement.

So, we are definitely off to appeal - I knew that anyway, but am now thinking that if that's their line of tack we are going to have to find a way to get independent evidence on the level and frequency of support and the qualifications of the person supplying it. Who is best for this Independent EP?

Finally, she said that the school have said if we succeed in getting the statement tightened up then they will be unable to meet his needs. I asked if that meant he could lose his place at a school he's been at for 7 years and she said yes! I said surely that constitutes as an illegal exclusion based on disability and then she said the LEA would press the school to keep him, particularly as its his transitional year.

I also pointed out that the school is or has already supplied the support we are trying to quantify, we just want it set in stone so that they can't muck about with it whenever they like and so that his secondary will keep up the same level of support. Had to point out the irony of a school saying they can't meet ds's needs as set down in a statement that actually describes the support they are already giving him. Said I didn't get why they would say this unless it's financially motivated and she said she was confused about that as well.

Whole bloody thing is farcical - round and round with ridiculous arguments that either manipulate to stay just within the law - or downright flaut the law but don't care who knows about it because no-one can do a damn thing about it!

When was the statement issued, or when was his last Annual Review. Because it is always receommended to bring forward AR in Transition years ie Yr 6, so you could ask for his next AR to be before Christmas and get the specialists to prepare new reports specifically for transition. In my expereience they are more likely to quantify things and be more specific at this point to ensure a smooth transition to secondary.

oh eck they are playing hardball now, aren't they , in the hope that if they ignore you you will go away. good luck with sorting out EP etc. about the one useful thing that came out of that convo is that sounds like LEA will kick school into touch re:threats about being unable to meet his needs if he's got a statement.

Nappy, the statement hasn't been issued yet, just a second/proposed amended statement. Thanks for the idea about AR though, if we get it finalised in time IPSEA said something similar about there being an early AR to cover transition.

TLP, yep no more Mr Nice guy on either side methinks. You're right though, the LEA want ds in his catchment ms school for primary and secondary, so at least we have that in our favour, as it just happens to be what we want as well.

A moosemama in a tribunal, they'd best listen carefully, or they'll face the consequences, far more disruptive than a bull in a china shop....

If you appeal you may be able to time the EP report for after the LA has to put in their response and before the last date for evidence. That way you are not forking out until you are sure the LA are going to drag it all the way to tribunal. Because if they are not arguing about the actual provision just the wording the LA would be really stupid to incur the expense of a tribunal and may back down when it actually comes to having to spend time drafting a response. Ask about fees for attending tribunal in Midlands when asking for quotes so you know the full cost as the hearing is normally held near where you live
The transition meeting should take place before Feb when they have to name the school for secondary.

Just to warn you though, despite me having lots of evidence that we were disputing the lack of quantification in the report, the LEA response to our tribunal was that they had no idea why we were going to tribunal and that they had heard nothing to this. Of course I immediately refuted this - via tribunal e-mail and copy to LEA with a copy of all the e-mail correspondence proving they were either dot talking to each other or lying depending on how charitable you want to be.
Just warning you that they play mind games and not to count on it doing anything much until just before the tribunal date. BUT we ended up with more provision in the statement as a result of them dragging it out and us paying for private reports.

I had the same thing about quantification. So like you probably have, I made it up - for much higher than I thought I would get to have some room for negotiation.
When they quizzed me about how I got the figures I told them that I had been advised by their own officer to do so as there was none in the professional reports. We then negotiated within this.
So my advice would be to stick to your guns. I'm sure you can find the strength to do it.

Oo thank you Leonie, yes we are pretty close to Brum. I think I've heard of Margo Sharp as well.

Why, how do/will Cerebra help with the costs?

I've been working on my enormous need vs provision cross reference document this morning and am getting more and more at how little there is in there, yet we are still having to fight. The basics of what he can get by on are in there, but nothing to make sure the school actually does it. It all comes down to a poorly written EP report really, it's written in a kind of 'I know what I mean so I assume you will too' way, partially I think because she knows ds and us so well and is very familiar with his needs, having supervised his EP involvement for 12 weeks last year. Reading her report, I know exactly what she means and the school will too, but of course they can choose to resource it however they like, as it's not worded in such a way as to say he has to have it done X way.

I have actually been able to line up her recommended provision against the identified needs and you can see how well they fit together and exactly what she is saying, but with her saying someone with X qualifications, X times a week/month for X hours the LEA just won't quantify it. Of course she couldn't do that, having been told not to by the LEA. I know of a certain Ep from our LA that was sacked for going against an internal directive not to offer any advice regarding appropriate placement. EP was sacked, took LA to tribunal, won, but was left with their career in tatters. No EP is going to stand up to the LA after that, for fear of risking their job.

Thing is, she would be the best person to take to the tribunal as our witness, but I doubt she would do that, given the fact that she's an LEA employee.

Just googled Margo Sharp and realised she is a SALT. Unfortunately the support we're trying to quantify is mostly around Emotional Literacy and anxiety management.

That said, I'd love him to be seen by a SALT, as we've never had any SALT input, because he is highly verbal and of course SALT is rare as hens teeth around these parts. It's always completely overlooked that his understanding doesn't equal his vocabulary, not to mention the whole pragmatic side of AS communication skills and of course the fact that we were told at his assessment that he has almost non-existant non-verbal communication skills.

Sounds really good Leonie, I am just worried that they will say the evidence is not like-for-like as it's not an EP report, as per their own. Does that even matter do you think, as long as she backs up what the EP has said and specifies and quantifies support?

Thanks for the offer of the reports - that's really kind of you.

I just read an article in SEN magazine by her about SPD and was gobsmacked at how obvious it is that ds has it, yet no-one has ever suggested assessing his language and communication skills, let alone supporting him with them.

Will go and send you a pm now.

Hi moose, do you mean Semantic Pragmatic Disorder or Sensory Processing Disorder? I guess the former. There's a page on it on NAS site. I initially thought that was what DS2 had, but actually the ASD DX is a more extensive DX and covers everything that is in SPD.

Semantic Pragmatic Ellen. I always assumed it meant children who were overtly literal in their language skills and whilst ds can be and is literal in lots of ways, he has learned to understand metaphor etc by reading books about it, so stupidly thought he wasn't bad enough to need a SALT assessment.

As you say, pretty much all of it is already covered by an ASD dx. The thing that's niggling me though is that, although there's a lot of stuff in the statement about how staff should be aware of how ds's ASD impacts on his language and communication skills etc, because he tested so highly on the Vocab section of the WISC generally people seem to have grabbed hold of that and assumed he doesn't have any language difficulties in day to day life.

It bothers me that these communication skills are a fundamental problem within ASD, but that they seem to have deliberately chosen to ignore them with my ds because he can use big words. We have never had any SALT involvement, not even in his multi-disciplinary assessment.

It's that spiky profile again, moose. Their relative peaks (sometimes very high peaks) can disguise their troughs and people (even professionals who should know better) assume they are understanding more than they do. It's one of those things like when my DS appeared really bright in infants because all the learning was very concrete and appealed to his strengths. He was brilliant at phonics, decoding, using correct punctuation, and anything to do with Maths, but now he's older he struggles more and more with subjects like RE, English, History, where he has to put himself in other people's shoes and and work out why a writer etc used those particular words and have an opinion on events.

It doesn't mean that your DS isn't bright, just that his view of the world is rather different to a NT one, and all that 'common sense' understanding that come naturally to most has to be learned. Like the generalising, it's common sense to generalise your learning, but that concept has to be specifically taught to (some! ) DC with ASD. Your DS has 'passed for normal' for so long that it's hard for those around him to step back and remember that he's got ASD. My DS is 'lucky' that his ASD is immediately obvious as he's got older and people no longer overestimate him. In fact they tend to underestimate him, which is equally frustrating.

That's it exactly Ellen. Which is why one of the reasons I have an appointment with his teacher on Tuesday to explain why his Reading target for next year 'to understand the multi-layer aspects of texts, why they are there and how they affect the story' or words to that effect, is not exactly inspired given that he has AS.

I do think that as he gets older he is becoming more and more obviously 'different' than his peers though, so maybe at some point school will actually start to get it - well I can dream anyway!

I was watching him spinning, flapping, hopping and dancing his way around the cricket pitch the other day, while the rest of the team focussed on the ball and who was in bat etc. He looked so obviously autistic that it made me wonder why more people don't realise sooner, iyswim.

I think people who don't really have more than a passing interest in ASD, can't understand that they aren't doing it on purpose! Like the boy I was supporting, he seemed to a layman to be so articulate and read so expressively that why on earth couldn't he do better on reading comprehension? But he was trying his best, (well, usually!) he just didn't understand what answer was required.

yes, I agree with what ellen/leonie are saying re:SPD being overlooked (SPD has always seemed closest fit to my DS's "issues"). Leonie - would the cerebra voucher cover all of the private SALT costs though, IIRC when we discussed this a year or so back (I used to be TotalChaos), the total cost came to rather more than £500?

Ellen - yep, if you have a child who is speaking in fluent sentences, IME it's easy for teachers etc to assume no language problems. particularly if the child is well behaved.

Moose, i have a horrid feelin you might need to get a SLT and an EP report. Probably worth it, and I doubt you'd need both at tribunal.

Shameless hijack: i see why EP needs to visit school, does SLT always have to?

mariam - what moose wants in the statement is incredibly modest and reasonable - a few hours 1-1 and autism outreach in - is it monthly, and being able to use a laptop for written work.

in terms of having salt come to school - in a non-tribunal situation I had private salt go to ds's school - I wanted an unbiased report about how he was managing in school, from someone 100% switched on to language issues (my DS is placid, and was good at blagging understanding) so could easily fall under the radar). Basically I wanted her opinion on whether he would be OK in ms or if I should be pushing for language unit.