Final statement received...

[KOKOagainandagain]

... and it is crap!

GOSH, DK and MS reports are listed under Parental Advice rather than Medical Advice. Is this right/normal?

None of my amendements have been incorporated.

GOSH report has been reduced to 'auditory processing difficulties' - no other mention of difficulties, not identified as an SEN, no provison in part 3.

DK report has been reduced to 'according to an independent medical report from Dr Keen; Mild Tourette Syndrome and ASD'. No other mention of difficulties but identified 'social use of language' as a new SEN under the general heading of Personal, Social and Emotional. No provision in part 3.

MS report is not mentioned at all in part 2 and there is no provision in part 3.

His SEN are listed as Learning: 1. Literacy and Numeracy 2. Memory and information processing difficulties. Personal, Social and Emotional: 3. Self-esteem 4. Social use of language. Part 3 provision is exactly the same as the draft and does not include the 4th objective.

Concludes 15 hours per week LSA (individually, in a small group or within class) in ms.

In part 4 the statement names the ms school he has never and is unable to attend.

No mention of DS being unable to attend school, medical authorisation of absence, reintegration provision - nada.

On the other hand, EOTAS, who share the same office, are trying to persuade him to attend an MLD complex needs group in a nearby town rather than receive his five hours at home. They also want him to work towards 'functional skills' qualifications - which apparently are recognised by B&Q btw - rather than the NC which is beyond him ffs he used to be above average in his academic attainment when he was 7 and now they have him playing with play-doh and Monopoly.

I feel as though I am simultaneously occupying multiple universes.

Will obviously appeal asap.

Nothing to say really. You know what the next step is. You know this is just the route to adequate provision these days.

You know, presumably, that 15 hours specified in the way it has been means that there will be a classroom TA available to the teacher every morning that the school have to fund.

Oh, but I should say that I am sorry all the same. No doubt you had a glimmer of hope that they wouldn't be bastards.

sorry you are having this... as star said, you know the next step. is there anybody these days getting a decent statement without appeal (our hearing is soon)? by the sound of it, your 15 hours are not 1:1, are they?

star it is what it is which is crap. tbh honest I would have been more concerned if there were substantial amendments to parts 2 and 3 but a package put together that would have a hope in hell of meeting DS's needs in the ms. As it stands this is very poor from the LEA Tribunal pov - they would have no current expert witnesses - Head/SENCO from primary school DS left in July 2012, EP observations from primary school or Head and/or SENCO from high school he has never attended or EOTAS teacher/TA who are trying to get him to go to a MLD unit. Plus he has had over 40 interventions in the past 4/5 years that have failed - ratio gain calculated at 0.3. The statement simply formalises provision of interventions that have previously failed. The statement even says 'DS has good social skills and positive relationships with his peer group' but then identify 'social use of language' as an SEN and then ignore it in part 3.

I feel angry about the lowering of expectations, the acceptance that he has become below average and the gap increases year on year. Age 7, above average, age 11 below average - what the fuck happened in the intervening 4/5 years - oh yes, I forgot, his needs weren't met.

Do you mean that the TA would be available to all the DC in the class (as is usual) or that there would be an extra TA for DS?

No extra TA, - sorry, at least not legally binding. The school might put one in, but they won't have to with that statement.

'individually, in a small group or within class' - the significant word here is 'or'. so basically, if you had a TA 'within class', the statement will be fulfilled.

Of course, when you point this out they will say 'but we MEAN that ds will have 1:1 support'

in which case you respond 'so write that it is exclusively for him then and that 'groups' and 'within classroom' will be lead by another adult with 1:1 being provided so that he can access them ',

at which point they will say 'no because the statement needs to be flexible to his changing needs, and puting exclusively means that he'll never learn independence'

at which point you say 'In that case the TA will have to have had higher level training because independence needs to be taught, it isn't something a child with ASD can learn incidentally, it needs to be part of his educational provision and he has a lot of catching up to do'

I am speechless.....

So in otherwords they have issued a statement that is worthless. He is not in school so 15 hours support for what? to do what?

No school transition/integration planning either?

words fail me [anger]

Sadly it does seem to be what they do. My sons hours upped to 32.5 but he's only in school part time so worthless and again put in no amendments so statement still worthless. We are heading to tribunal and I am shocked at the games. I k ow it goes on because of what I have read here but still shocking when it happens to you. Appeal is what you need to do and there are plentynof people on here to help. It is crap though when you get a crap statement but you need to fight this

Sorry to see you got what seems to be a 'normal' provision round here these days.

Good luck with appeal.

Sorry, even when you expect it, its still gutting as it means more delay and more fighting.
We got a similar statement despite the LA's own EP report saying 'DS needs to continue ABA programme parents have started or as a minimum go to SS nursery' - he got 12.5 hours in mainstream nursery, termly SALT and outreach and then the bastards withheld 25% of his funding to punish the nursery for disagreeing with them that he needed fulltime 1:1.

The good news as you say is that the worse the statement, the easier the appeal.
Now we have 35 hours per week, 48 weeks per year ABA from Tribunal and living somewhere where the 'usual' provision is so poor made the case easier - had we been arguing for ABA against a ASD school or unit we might not have won what we did. The fact my LA has nothing to offer children with ASD except mainstream or a generic SS for SLD meant they had nothing to put on the table at tribunal.
So just appeal, don't negotiate with them, keep your powder dry for tribunal, the less chance they have to up their offer / improve the statement before then the better. I would leave the working doc until 2 weeks before to give them less chance to put more in.
Ask the tribunal to expedite the appeal if you want on the basis your child is out of school - they will usually knock 2 months off the process if you ask.

Tribunals will very often agree to indep SS for children who need to make up for lost education. I am sure we won what we did partly to make up for what had been lost before we got to tribunal.

It is shockingly bad and I think this is partly because the provision is non-existent in this area and they have to leave some room to up the offer.

On the one hand it is in my interests to preserve it in its pathetic state until Tribunal but on the other hand I don't want to be potentially blind-sided at the hearing by the LEA putting together a package of SALT and OT with peripetetic teachers/outreach etc in the mainstream or a dual placement of an unsuitable ss and an unsuitable ms. I may then appear unreasonable as this is a million miles from what they initially proposed and has not been tried yet. I've already laid my cards on the table but I have not yet seen their hand or more precisely what they have up their sleeve.

The meaninglessness of a statement for 15 hours for a child that is not in school is mind-boggling. Does this mean that EOTAS have to up his home tuition from 5 to 15 hours? I expect not as I will be appealing. No loss - I have my own play-doh and monopoly.

KeepOnKeepingOn1

I'm sorry it's such a weak statement I would be p*ssed off!

Surely GOSH should be under PT 2? I know I would want it in pt2 and would insist on this.

Also I may be wrong but the bit about the TA I would be worried as it sounds as though your son won't get a TA 1:1 which means the TA will be there for the class not just him.

It looks v likely you will need to appeal which sadly seems to be what pretty much everyone has to do as the LA are bloody sneaky & always try and get out of writing statements to the SEN Code of Practice.

Start writting your appeal now and get the ball rolling. I am at the appeal stage for my son's statement and it is dragging and exhausting but the LA know I will go all the way to get provision...they should start to take on what you want when you appeal.

Good luck

Keepon,

I've just read some of your history on claws thread and want to say that I'm really sorry about telling you the statement isn't all it is pretending to be.

I know you've been through enough to know not to shoot the messenger but I'm sorry all the same.

star you don't need to be sorry

The final statement is so crap - even things that DS was entitled to (like peripetic SpLD teacher) at SA+ - have not been included. Even if it were possible/desirable to put together a package in the ms - just for SpLD, never mind ASD - this would be crap! Repetition of previous interventions that have failed?

I am actually quite looking forward to watching the LEA attempt to defend this rag with out of date/irrelevant witnesses.

Lots of LAs outsource statement writing now. I think the brief is broadly 'find a way of making the reports and evidence fit into the budget we have already given the school'. Then, if challenged the LA themselves finally take their first look at it.

Well it looks like my LA are struggling to know what to put in our sm (due to still not knowing his full needs). Was asked the other day if I had any examples to let them have a look at

Badger, ask for a qualified teacher with 3 years experience in a special school and who is booked onto 20 hours of ABA training and who is also a qulafied SALT to be your child's 1:1.

I don't know whether our LA outsource - I do know that the case has moved up the case-worker hierarcy with each previous person replaced by their line manager. Now I'm dealing direct with the 'complex cases' senior manager that handles all the tribunal cases. Does this mean that there are so many 'complex cases' going to tribunal that they actually have to employ someone to 'handle them'?

badger - are they fishing to find out what you will settle for/whether you know what you are entitled to?

TBH, I'd quite like to be an outsourced statement writer. I'd lose my job if the first draft was costly, but there is a hellova lot you can put in a statement that costs nothing but will make a difference. If the parents don't challenge (and most don't do they?) then you have still improved things for the child, and if the parents do challenge then hopefully some of it stick even WITH whatever else the parent wins....

Our case is being dealt with by the SEN manager as our usual caseworker appears to have cracked under the strain and will no longer deal with me. Truth is that ds is very complicated and they're beginning to realise how hard it will be to find a placement. They are definitely fishing keepon and I'm sure they didn't realise that I was that clued up. The request to look at a sm came when I casually mentioned that I was aware of a case that went to tribunal as a 5 page sm and came out as a 17 pager .
What I'm concerned about is that they don't know his full needs or the provision required but already decided that a local mainstream will be fine .
Star that job would be ideal for you - I've heard that Herts are desperate to fill that position

star I think you may be over-qualified

My LEA statement-writer was more a cutter-and-paster. The provisions were a straight cut and paste from the LEA EP report. Part 2 was an amalgamation of statements cut and paste from the evidence received (cherry picked off course).
It is a strange hermetically sealed world where nothing (ie the child and their needs) exists outside the written text. Quite simply I don't recognise my child and any teacher he encountered who had read the statement would not have a hope in hell of meeting his needs.

badger my LEA did not understand DS1 - the assessments done over the summer can explain all - no mystery any longer. But the lea have still decided that local ms will be fine. Don't expect them to want to find out the extent of his needs - best not to know and then it is not necessary to make provision. Hence you have to pay for assessement - which the LEA ignore - and then you go to Tribunal. I think we need a real timeline that reflects our experiences to replace the official every child matters timeline.

keepon, sorry the final statement is so pathetic. But would agree in some ways it's helpful that it is so blatantly inadequate. I suspect we also had a cutter and paster (the other child's name that they forgot to change gave us a slight clue )

When we asked tribunal to expedite as ds was out of school, they asked us to go back to the LA to see if they were happy to do so, not sure what would have happened, if they had been unwilling, but as it happened the LA conceded before we got that far. Still angry that they wasted so many months arguing when he could have been in appropriate provision.

Hope they cave soon.