LEA said no ABA

[nupurkumarika]

I am in early stages of statementing. and in one of the meetings with LEA. they took minutes of meeting that said - LEA will not fund ABA in school. I wrote back saying - Is this a blanket policy not to fund ABA...if so...tell me pls. The answer was - No, it is not a blanket policy. And the next question was - Do you know any other ABA families in the area?

Ask them wtf an ABA family is?

:-) star...they asked if I knew other families doing ABA in the area. I do know a couple of families but said NO to LEA. They then asked how I knew so much about things and legal stuff and I said - GOOGLE...the look on their faces

Google? - lol

How about 'my lawyer told me'.

WFT business is it of theirs who you know?

Write to them and ask them in what circumstances they would fund ABA.

A pal of mine is adamant that someone some day will bring a suit under the Disability Discrimination Act for blanket anti ABA policies like this: if ABA is the learning route which enables a kid to access mainstream education, then it is no different to the ramp for a child in a wheelchair.

Sickof - very, very good point (although it is the Equality Act now, coughs with lawyer like self-importance).

We have a case like this in our school with another child and have advised on using the EA as it is something I am planning to write on.

Do ask a good lawyer to look at that point - you need someone who really knows their stuff in terms of public law/equality.

Can suggest someone feisty if you want? PM me.

That is EXACTLY the case I was trying to make but no-one was interested.

The case against us (trademark of the laywer against us) was that the tribunal should not order ABA if the HT refused admission of ABA tutors.

MY argument was that the HT had no more legal right to refuse admission of ABA tutors than a wheelchair ramp.

Sadly, I could find no-one to make that case.

It would make a very interesting test case, as even if it failed, the lemming-like state school system might actually start throwing open the doors to ABA for fear of being sued (witness previous kneejerk reactions like banning conkers, or the photos at kids' sports days). Will bear your feisty lawyer in mind but don't have any beef myself any more with ms and no particular mum in mind at present

I might be that mum one day.

I think it might work you know. I worked for am American firm, and sexism in the workplace had practically gone due to a few highly-publicised law suits by women . To use an ABA analogy, it's aversives that change "corporate" behaviour

Ramps facilitate physical access... Not much good if the dc is then left crying in a corner cos they're parked facing away from the whiteboard, with their hearing aids set to "VERY VERY VERY LOUD" and their loo permanently used for storage. Our dc do get the physical access (usually)

Better to argue ABA ban is like banning Braille, eye pointers or BSL.

My LEA said exactly this too - that they "didn't fund ABA" and there were no "ABA families in the borough".

Well, I have met at least two "ABA families" directly who have programmes funded, and my consultant knows of at least one other. And we make another to the list.

Often they get away with saying this as it's not formally written as a funded ABA programme. Eg in our case, ds's TA (funded by LEA) has ongoing training and supervision from our ABA supervisor, is following our ABA programme, comes to regular workshops with the rest of the team, fills in data sheets, and our IEP is written by our supervisor, but as the TA is not officially an 'ABA tutor' we do not have an ABA programme. Ho no, not at all

Are you in Essex?!