What happens when you want all the bloody useless LA provision of your statement???

[inappropriatelyemployed]

DS has had trouble with useless SLT and social skills groups and won't now do them at school so we are paying our SLT so he can do this out of school. I'm having to ask him to stop these groups and do something different and altogether more useful.

We haven't seen an OT for a year. Lodge a Tribunal appeal and she suddenly appears. She has now produced a bloody ridiculous report saying all the usual crap - he ties his laces (when he has never tied his laces in his life) oh and of course the usual, he is fine when dad picks him up. Mmmm, what could that mean? What me? Mum, a problem? It is a coincidence that blaming mum is so much cheaper too.

The real cheek is not only that it has taken her two months to write this 2 pages of crap so it is now out of date but her useless declarations like ' it would be good for DS to be more independent' and 'what we are aiming for is independence'.

It's like saying what we are aiming for is world peace. Would she like to suggest how this is achieved? Now, I shook the report upside down and no strategies came out!!

No, of course, just hit and run. I will be left to sort out him becoming independent.

But she must be a bloody good OT as just by looking at him she said his muscle tone has improved! yet she failed to mention the daily physio I have been doing with him for a year, physio she dismissed until Gt Ormond St said it was needed. Fatigue, he's playing you up. Six months later, oh, GOSH says he has Hypermobility Syndrome. Well I wouldn't bother with exercises, there's no point and you'll just ruin his childhood.

Thankfully, this wonderful head of paediatric occupational therapy will now be back in 4 months: interestingly, just before the Tribunal.

I have instructed our own OT. Can I tell this awful woman to sod off? She isn't on the statement to deliver anything in particular. Why do we need her around? If we didn't proceed to Tribunal, who would care? What could the LA say?

Thanks. I had amended the OT section to make it more specific but we will only get this woman forced to attend if it is accepted.

I would rather keep it vague and employ someone myself.

How well can you play "dumb MUM"?

I've been known to write asking if they've sent the right child's report to me with a few pointed queries

e.g
You mention a child with the ability to tie his shoe laces - this isn't a skill that MY child has yet aquired.
No mention is made of his hypermobility syndrome - you mention behavioral issues - is this in reference to a different condition?

Keep a copy of the letter

Good idea Boc.

Good suggestion, but I know this woman too well to get away with that!

Mind you, if her report is that ridiculous it will be easy to rip to shreds at tribunal surely? This will be good evidence that the LA professionals do not understand his needs.

Worryingly though she seems to have based alot of it on what is 'reported' by the TA!

So she comments that school think DS's 'gait and gross motor skills have improved'. From what? To what? Could he not catch a ball before and can now?

I am really disappointed in this rubbish. Our TA is bloody troublesome though. An ex-teacher who thinks she knows it all and resents the fact that DS doesn't like her and makes this obvious.

I will speak to the head but I think she needs to take out all the 'reported' crap. What does she know? That is all that matters.

It appears that she doesn't know a lot hence relying on 'hearsay' from unqualified staff. TA's that think they know it all are the worst kind unfortunately.

And she is the head of this department! Big on words, short on action.

I think we need to get her off the statement and end her involvement.

This is the wonder woman who also told DS 'to stop running silly' when she tested his gross motor skills 18 months ago and who didn't say a word during the testing but afterwards, when his skills came out as 'well below average' said that this was because he was being silly.

If it helps I'm going into annual review with the same aim re cahms. They don't have the knowledge or the inclination to help my son, & historically they have been REALLY detrimental to his interests. I wouldn't trust them with my dog, so definately don't want them within a 10 mile radius of my son.

Alternate letter approach?
What standardised tests did she utilise to measure progress?
You already have the TA's opinion in other documentation - what you were hoping for was her professional opinion? What was the class teacher's view?

OR
Perhaps you can just be honest and say that as your child's needs are so complex and she missed so much during her initial assessment that you've lost faith and would prefer for her not to be involved so that you can go private for someone who has the skill set needed to help your child with the risk of confusion occuring in his therapy regime? This is what I'll be saying about cahms, as I don't have the patience to indulge their delusions any longer.

without the risk of confusion - sorry.

Thanks Boc. That is what I'm thinking now - just telling her that her services are no longer required.

Our current OT section is so unspecified that it doesn't require her to be involved. She only did the school visit because they amended the statement after the annual review to require this.

She missed the HMS.She constantly blames him when she doesn't get the results she wants. She won't come to multi-disciplinary meetings or set IEP targets so she s not in a place to measure progress etc. She has seen him once in 18 months so she hardly knows him. And I just don't trust her any more (not that I will say that).

It's a shame as she was very helpful to start with. I just think she doesn't want to get dragged into the education thing so she will say and do as little as possible.

Well you obviously don't need this silly woman, but do you NEED OT to be a part of your child's reported needs for future evidence? What kind of placement are you looking for for secondary?

Could you have a sensory need assessment? There are very few OTs trained in this so if it appears on the statement in the future you'll almost certainly have to have a private one commissioned who can do this.

Star this OT was supposed to come in to school to assess the sensory environment but this is not what her report is at all. She has resisted coming into school and I suspect this is why.

The statement requires training of staff which she has done, a programme of fine motor skills which she has not set up and her to advise on the classroom environment which she will say is now done. But there is no detail of how ,an times she will visit, how involved she will be etc. I was going to firm this up but it will only force her t be involved.

Now she has done her bit as far as the statement goes, can we not say thanks but as you can't set IEP targets or work with DS on the ground we will be asking an independent OT to take over his OT.

There is no specific programme set out in the statement. It is just left to school.

We are hoping to find a mainstream secondary. Indeed, we've looked at a local one which had a marvellous SENco and are gong to start doing visits with DS

Can you ask for her sensory integration qualifications?

Did they even do a Winnie Dunn questionnaire?

The thing is though, - you need to weigh up time spent flogging a dead horse with time just working on your ds yourself. The problem is, you often need these useless people, not for their expertise, but for their 'status' to be able to demonstrate that your child HAS needs.

It's a joke. But you know that.

I agree but if we instruct our own OT, why do I need this NHS one? She is not quieted under the statement so I can't be accused of being obstructive and preventing her from carrying out statementing provision. I lam not asking the LA to pay.

Is there a problem with me discharging DS from her service and using someone who can actually attend a school meetings and provide IEP targets etc?

The OT needs are still on the statement and it would be hard to argue to remove them without evidence he doesn't need it.

Well, it sounds fair enough, but the problem might be whether the school agree, and how much of their agreement will be tarnished by the LA's view.

And the LA's view will almost certainly be 'this parent is gearing up for DPs'.

School were the ones asking for IEP targets and the OT refused. She has also refused to attend multi-disciplinary meetings.

I told the school I would find another OT and they have been happy with that.

However, I wasn't going to do anything about this one. Now, I feel she is only around to make things stressful so she may as well be told to go.

I won't be putting the LA in breach of the statement and I'm not refusing access to my child. I'm just transferring his clinical care to someone else.

If school are happy using a private bod then go with it.

On a side note & off topic -

I discovered through talking to a lovely secondary HT the other day that if a child "habitually" uses a laptop in regular lessons and for home work then they will be permitted to use a laptop to do their ICGSE's. The discussion was in relation to the 3 online homeschools in the UK, but I thought it might be a useful tip to pass onto others.

One of the online homeschools teaches 9am -1pm 4 days per week in term time (formal lesson time, homework is extra). Class sizes are limited to 8 students but follow the NC inc a modern language & 3 science IGCSE options.(important to me).

This opens up the possibility of being able use afternoons and Fridays for decent therapy/social skills without the constant permission seeking & approval obtaining that staying in the state system would demand. The fees are also reasonable (no way could I afford specialist independent fees as a lone parent!). At the moment we are constantly skating on thin ice with the attendance officials yet DS is never ill!

I could fight for an independent SS at secondary level - but you have to weigh up the time spent fighting, in daft meetings, prepping for Tribunal against the damage to ordinary family life. It's a fine balance isn't it?

That sounds great bochead. I agree. Also, if you can get the child in m/stream (and I appreciate it is not for all children) with a flexible school, it can bring great benefits.

I will try and see head this week and see if they are onside with getting rid of the OT as she has done nothing for them.

Things have changed so much since she came in to school at the beginning of the term. Not necessarily for the worst, but teachers know him better now than they did.

Looking at the statement though, it does say the OT will review progress on the programme. This is my fault as I was trying to force her to set one up and monitor it - as you do!

She hasn't set up any programme so what can she review? If she won't do that or set IEP targets or monitor them, what is the point?

I think that you need to tighten the wording on the statement as so many people advised me to do. I am now fighting to get the school to take some notice of the lovely OT who has been into school so have the opposite problem, but your statement does need to say that someone appropriately qualified will set the programme, visit once a term monitor progress and change programme as appropriate.
I agree that you may be flogging a dead horse with that particular OT, but I assume it doesn't specify which OT you have to have and so the school can choose to use a different one - especially if you got OT into part 3 of the statement which is educational as the school arrange and commission and not part 5 which is health.

Thanks but the school don't arrange and commission provision. The LA do. This is the problem.

Any OT provision will mean this OT in accordance with the local service arrangement.