Parts 2 & 3 - statement

[sweetteamum]

I'm just going through this bloody statement - again!!

I'm just wondering if the provision specified in part 3, could account for more than one need in part 2

There is more needs than provision at the minute and I'm convinced I'm doing something wrong.

Thank you so much.

Yes, they can. So, for example, if a 'need' is anxiety and another 'need' is finding it hard to speak in groups, the 'provision' could be 'very small group work with the support of a TA' because the small group would encourage confidence in speaking and the adult support would give reassurance.

That's a bit lame, but hopefully you can see what I mean.

It is soooooooo frustrating and time consuming isn't it?

Basically, each of the needs under Part 2 (think of it as a diagnosis) should have very clear provision to meet those needs under Part 3( like a prescription).

This should be clear on the face of the statement.

It is possible that needs and provision overlap so if a child is autistic, he might have behavioural needs and communication needs which overlap and which may be met by the same intervention in terms of provision. But this needs to be clear.

Does that make sense?

Thank you both. Yes, after I've read it numerous times, it does make sense. I just need to make sure I'm reading it all clearly.

It's really hard as I don't find it easy to band things together - it usually has to be spelled out to me!

All provision is on one side of a4 paper at the minute.

They keep telling me that part 2 only has to be a brief summary as if you put everything in there it would be numerous pages long. How many pages do other people have for needs and provision?

My son's statement is 12 pages long.

You are perfectly entitled to ensure:

(a) everything goes in the statement- all needs and provision
(b) that the provision is specific and quantified. It must be absolutely clear - this is a handy summary from IPSEA

Thanks IE. dd's proposed statement is only about 5 pages long. The LA seem to want to keep it as small as possible - well they would, wouldn't they!

I've highlighted any negative thing that's been remarked on, that will impact her education. I've definitely got a lot more needs than they have so far.

I think it is as long as it needs to be but it helps to keep it concise so it is easy to read and implement by teachers.

However, this should not happen at the expense of the insertion of needs and provision.

I have decided after the meeting last Thursday that I'm going to put all the changes to them in writing. If they say they'll not implement them on the statement, then I will ask them to finalise and I will appeal.

Well why don't you list each 'need' and then each 'provision', even it that means listing the provision twice so you have the same number of needs and provisions.

So in lougle's example you will say anxiety = small group work, speaking up = small group work.

Then when you list the provision, you can say 'to support anxiety and speaking up, ds will receive x number of hours or twice weekly group work with no moer than 2 other children, run by a TA who has received half a day training by a highly specialist SALT' or something.

That may be a really good idea actually starlight. I've already wrote all 'needs' out, I just need to match a provision.

What do I do if there's no provision listed by the LA? Just leave it blank?

'What do I do if there's no provision listed by the LA? Just leave it blank?'

Course not. Someone has to write it in so it might as well be you? Let them make a case for why he doesn't need what you say he needs.

Ideally you'd have evidence for what/why he needed that, and if you like you can explain using logic.

i.e. a highly trained TA/pedagogically trained teacher to support all break and playground times as this is not 'down-time' for a child with ASD/social difficulties/mobility issues - whatever, - but critical learning time as well as being a time where he is at risk from developing high levels of anxiety which gone unprevented will lead to expensive, possibly residential provision in his teen years.

Put what in your heart you think he needs (not what you think you may one day be able to persuade them). If they haven't any ideas how to address those needs as professionals then all you are doing is highlighting how inadequate their current support/structure/provision is if they can't even write an appropriate sentence about it in a statement.

Again you talk perfect sense. Thanks so much for your reply. I really don't know what I'd do without the kindness of everyone.

At the minute the advice given, which is due to go into provision are mounting up compared to her needs - and that's before we have our parental say.

I'm sorry. I keep saying ds/he wrt your dd. Forgive me. I reflect too much on my own ds and my own experience I think.

This is not a nice experience you are going through. The responsibility is overwhelming. I know.

But be sure of one two things: 1)You won't get everything completely right, 2)You will still do a lot better for your dd than leaving it to anyone else.

Don't worry star, I do it myself sometimes.

Thanks for reassuring me. I think I expect to get it perfect first time.

I'm more than willing to fight as much as possible for dd and her needs. Even if I get it wrong sometimes.

it's a very useful thread for a lot of people, too

I completely agree. I've been scouring other 'statement' threads and an getting lots of advice for when I'm at that stage.

Could I also just ask (if anyone knows), we've had 2 EPs and the old one was rubbish, we had a disagreement then after that he said how fab dd was doing and he should see no reason why she can't be educated in mainstream. Then we had another one, who went off sick for a long period then saw dd as her last pupil before leaving the LA and going it alone, who says that dd should be educated in special school.

Our problem is the LA have put useless EP comments in but left the one that suggests special school out - how do I get around that?

Just put them back, and reference them to the EP report (which should also be submitted).

Any formality, officialdom and general competence is just an illusion.

Just take over and do it properly. Any of the individuals that actually DO care about your dd are not sitting in an office writing away their budget.

'are not sitting in an office 'trying NOT' to write away their budget.'

Ok, I will do the whole lot as I feel it needs to be. Making sure I state as many needs that will also point more to indi special school as I can fit in.

I like how they get 8 weeks to write this thing yet we only get 15 days!

Very true.
The people churning out all of these computer generated sentences will never even meet your child.

Do as Star suggests. Leave them to justify themselves,

Thank you so much for the advice. I feel a lot less lonely on here. I'm with people that speak the same language and don't judge when I need to ask simple questions - over and over knowing me! :)

Please could someone help me. I'd appreciate it so much.

LA are refusing to put SALT in parts 2/3. They've acknowledged the reports with lots of difficulties but say that any outside therapies needed to be provided in parts 5/6

Now the nhs salt has discharged (without informing us) dd, stating no therapy is needed. However, ipsea, sossen, ace all say that it's definitely educational, as I know.

How do I deal with this? Lea have said her communication difficulties are listed in part 2, but I'm just so confused if they've acknowledged and listed difficulties, then surely someone has to help her overcome these difficulties?

It's useful to be clear about this. Needs in part 2 are acknowledged to be educational, so provision for them goes in part 3. Any needs in part 5 are non-educational so related provision is also non-educational.

LA obviously accept that there are educational SLT needs (a tactical error on their part) but want provision to be outside part 3 ie not their problem, not their responsibility, desirable but NHS-funded and discretionary. This is not legal, and presumably a tribunal would see that instantly.

Making too much fuss too early might just alert them to 'disappear' the SLT needs from part 2, unless the statement is already finalised.

The problem is that the draft statement says that DD does not need SALT input in part 2 despite describing (in really vague terms) her difficulties. You either need to put in recommendations from the existing SALT report in part 3 if they are there (in the report not the statement) or accept that you will have to get an indi SALT report that carries out more comprehensive assessment and will specify and quantify recommended support (and that this is maybe going to tribunal).

No, it's not finalised yet. They are wanting to discuss schools next week then finalise asap afterwards. Should I leave the conversation there for now then? She was a little patronisisng and said "just to be clear her difficulties are listed in part 2 but it's provided in parts 5/6, I will clear this up with you at the meeting"

At present they seem to be hanging on to the fact the NHS SALT (who have limited funds and didn't discharge us until after hearing from the LA) have said no regular therapy is needed and DD is being discharged.

Do you think I should get a SALT report again now or wait until tribunal?