IEPs or 'pupil profiles'? confused....

[penny100]

Hi, my DS's (8yo AS) school doesn't do IEPs, they do what they call 'Pupil Profiles' instead. Does anyone know whether this is going to make it harder when applying for a statement? Even filling out the DLA form, they ask about IEPs, not pupil profiles. I'm confused why they would opt not to do it, unless it is just easier for them. Confused as to whether this is going to be a problem for us. I wondered if anyone else had encountered 'pupil profiles' and whether they might prove to be less (or more?) helpful in the statementing process?

A school cannot say it doesn't 'do' IEPs. IEPs are set out as a requirement of the SEN COP

Pupil profiles are generally just short summaries of the child's needs so teachers can understand them.

IEPs set targets, set out the provision to meet those targets and measure progress against targets so it can be seen if the child needs more provision or different provision.

Is your son on the SEN register? If so, he needs an IEP

Thanks inappropriate. He's on School Action Plus so can I assume from that that he's on the SEN register? Are IEPs definitely a requirement or more a recommendation? if they're a legal requirement I can't see how the school can avoid them. DS's school definitely seem to be unusual in not having them...

My goodness - if he is on SA+, he really should have IEPs or else how are they meauring his progress?

The SEN COP is statutory guidance. It is not law but it means that it should be followed unless there is a very good reason not to follow it.

I can't find my copy at the moment but it definitely says that a child should have an IEP which should be reviewed at least termly

have you got a copy?

What does the pupil profile do?

They're described by DS's senco as an ongoing document that all teaching staff can access. I am always given a copy when they update it, and it seems to document all additional support he is being given, any views from ed psych, salt, results from any assessments etc. But it doesn't seem to contain any targets. I'm not sure what an IEP actually looks like. Sorry - I don't sound very on the ball with all of this. I'm still fairly new to it all and maybe it's just me but it's pretty torturous trying to work out how everything works, hidden agendas and all!!

It is so don't apologise.

Do you have a copy of SEN COP? You can access it online. It will tell you a child should have an IEP.

The profile just sounds like a pupil passport which some schools use to describe the child's needs etc so that all staff are 'on message'. It is not the same as an IEP.

An IEP should set out SMART targets: See here for some links etc.

This really isn't good enough from the school for a child on SA+. Schools don't like doing IEPs as they have to record whgat they do but tough. You need to be able to see if intervention is working

Actually IEPs aren't a requirement of the SENCOP, just suggested best practice. A school can record provision, targets and records differently if they want to. Some use provision mapping along with regular reports and a pupil profile. They have to be 'as good' as an IEP, but guaranteeing that is tricky.

Yes, the SENCOP says 'should' rather than 'must' WRT to IEPs, but they should still be recording targets and progress somehow and a pupil profile alone doesn't sound like it's doing the job.

<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DfES%200581%20200MIG2228.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DfES%200581%20200MIG2228.pdf

OK, please see para 5:50 of SEN COP this confirms that IEPs "should" be used.

Should in law meant must not may.

However, I repeat the point I made before - SEN COP is statutory guidance not law.

This however does not mean you need not follow it. The law is very clear - the status of statutory guidance is important and it should be followed unless there is a good reason not to follow it. This has been repeated time and time again in case law.

So, unless there is a good reason not to follow SEN COP's guidance, it should be followed. If there is a good reason to record the intervention and measure progress in another form, this should be justified and the recording should be at least as good.

The OP is saying the profile's do not record or measure progress at all.

Yes, the SENCOP says 'should' rather than 'must' WRT to IEPs, but they should still be recording targets and progress somehow and a pupil profile alone doesn't sound like it's doing the job.

Sorry Ellen - as a matter of law should is prescriptive not discretionary.

For example, the LA shall arrange the provision in the statement. This is interpreted as must.

This is really very helpful to me, Ellen and Inappropriate. Thanks so much both for the points made and links. I think I need a meeting with the senco asap!

I bow to your superior legal knowledge, IE. My understanding was that those parts of the code that must be followed were preceded by must in bold, rather than 'should' but this may be inaccurate information. Shall and should mean different things in standard Enhlish, but perhaps not in a legal sense? Shall means it will be done, should means there's some doubt?

Hiya,
Just like to add that my son's new school say they don't do IEP's but they do provision maps.I am due to attend a meeting soon to go over his provision plan.i have been given the outline already.
As a teacher, I know there is a big drive to get away from IEP's and use provision plans instead.The idea is to show what is being provided for the child and how they are trying to make progress rather than just show the targets.
However,I am only familiar with IEP's myself and can't see how the child's progress can be measured with the provision map.There are no actual targets so I do intend to ask what targets he is working towards.

I know the assessment they use is B squared which does break tasks down into really small steps so I am presuming they are going to say his targets are the main P levels or NC levels which obviously are not then individualised and do not take non-academic targets into account.
I would therefore also be interested if anyone could shed more light on how the provision maps work.

Tell them that in line with the government agenda you'd like your ds to have an 'outcome map' rather than a provision map, as what is being provided is only as useful as the progress being made.

Therefore you need to start with the outcomes being identified for targeting and work backwards to identify the provision that needs to meet that.

FFS.

I don't write IEPs (secondary SENCO but also Mum of SN child and imperfect human being) because I can show that the provision map and target setting by the school do the same job. I think the difference is that I DO spend time making myself available to parents to explain this to them and give them a copy of our equivalent of a pupil profile. Parents/carers of pupils with SN need a genuine partnership with the school and these forums show that this is often so difficult to achieve.

And I am learning so much from reading these threads.

Hi luvmyboyz,
Could you explain a little bit how you can show they are doing the same job.Do you have seperate targets related to
the statement and then show how the provision map meets these targets? Otherwise how do you relate the provision map to the objectives on the statement?
Thanks.

I thought the statement was the provision map, i.e. ie set out the provision, and then ieps are done on top to show short-term targets (for us they were half-termly and I had that written into the statement amazingly).

In what way are provision plans superior to IEPs. I mean, why the move away?

In what way are provision plans superior to IEPs. I mean, why the move away?

What was so wrong with them (except for the fact I never met a teacher who knew how to write one that was meaningful, but is that easily solved by changing them to provision plans?)

I don't think they are superior.I think as they show what provision the child has, if the child isn't making progress, they need to think what more needs to be provided.
My son's one for example says things like SALT and then ongoing under the frequency heading.It says curricular support 1-1 -ongoing. So doesn't say what support or how and there are no targets.Granted,I haven't had the meeting yet so am hoping it will be refined and explained fully as at the moment don't like the look of it at all.

I suppose I just wouldn't be interested in how many SALT sessions he was getting. I'd be interested in how much progress he was making against a baseline assessment of language and how this can be sped up, improved upon, generalised and made functional.

If a fantastic SALT can do that with one session a year training a dinner lady to work with him in a large group at the dinner table then that would be fine by me. Better that than weekly sessions with a drip of a SALT who doesn't know how to even engage my ds let alone improve his communication.

So I'd want to know where he is, and where he is going, and how he is going to get there. Only THEN would I have any interest in the provision that will enable that to happen.

Exactly.You (star) saying that the statement is the provision map is in effect correct.It is merely repeating what provision is mentioned in the statement.
Then in my experience,the IEP would use former assessments to make new targets and show strategies for how to achieve these within a given timescale.Can't see where this is being done at all with the provision maps!!??!
Will mention that at the meeting-that it's just repeating itself!

Can you imagine shareholders in a company they have invested in being satisfied with a 'provision map'? I'm sure they couldn't give a flying fig about how many hours the receptionist works, they just want to know what the projected outcome is for their investment and how realistic and deliverable that will be.

Sorry, jussi, it's getting a little too tense here for me. Please speak to the SENCO to see what the school's system is and how it relates to your child's outcomes and take it from there. Take further steps if it isn't clear how they are meeting your child's needs and supporting them to make expected progress. Each provision on the map should have the intended out comes so it doesn't have to be needlessly repeated on an IEP. best wishes and I'm out.

Thank you! No outcomes at mo but maybe that needs to be added!