96.9% of SA lead to a statement being issued

[KOKOagainandagain]

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225699/SFR30-2013_Text.pdf

Somebody helpfully posted 2013 stats the other day. The most interesting headline stat shows nearly 97% of SA result in a statement.

The explanation that "This percentage is high since it is recommended that LA?s only carry out an assessment if they believe that the child probably has special educational needs and that the child?s provision needs to be determined by making a statement" is not an adequate explanation.

Is data collected regarding the number of school applications granted assessment, the number of parental applications granted assessment on 1st app, 2nd app, tribunal etc and if so can we get hold of if?

It is also interesting to see that the number of statements with ASD as a primary need far outweighs the number of DC supported at Action or Action+ whereas for SLCM, EBD, SpLD, MLD the opposite is the case. It would be interesting to see if the number of parental as opposed to school applications for SA differ amongst these groups and whether the rate of success in obtaining a statement differs amongst these groups or the number of applications/assessments/tribunal necessary before a statement is issued.

From the LA pov it must appear 'obvious' that they need to reduce the number of statements 'given' for ASD which perhaps partially explains the nasty tactics they use and makes it clear to me why the LA expended so much energy challenging DS1's ASD diagnosis.

If the data doesn't exist in an analysed state I am thinking that a FOI request to all LA (if someone has the techie skills) may yield interesting information and regional variation (I wonder if LA's share 'best practice' wrt effective shafting ).

Maybe IE's blog would be a good place to disseminate info. Alternatively, we could set up an online survey - surveymonkey make this very easy.

Tbh I think it's across all areas of SEN. My son's primary need is dyslexia, yet my LA argued in court that dyslexia is actually a speech and language problem, and that dyslexia does not exist. But that's because they were trying to place him in a speech and language unit. I honestly believe that if my son's primary need was speech, and the LA was trying to place him in a dyslexia unit (if one existed!!), the LA would argue that speech problems don't exist (or if they did, aren't an educational requirement).

My LA are just plain nasty to all disabilities - particularly dyslexia. But, ultimately, this LA makes it up as they go along

It would be really interesting to know the percentage of people who apply for statutory assessment, and get turned down at that first hurdle. Anecdotally, there seem to be many children who get turned down for SA, and if it's never pursued, then I guess they doesn't become part of the statistics. A nearly 97% rate seems very high indeed, and suggests that the actual assessment has happened before this stage. And that's unregulated, and in many cases by professional not qualified to make that call.

I don't think it's too surprising.

SA should only be carried out if a statement 'probably' needs to be made.

SA will only fail if something comes up during assessment to show that the school could be doing so much more out of their own resources which would negate the need for a Statement.

I agree totally, however, that it brushes the journey to Statutory Assessment under the carpet, which is where the real problems are.

TOWIE - the argument of your LA never made sense - the proportion of DC with SLCN and a statement is far higher than those with SpLD as a primary need. The high proportion of DC with SLCN explains why the LA has been forced to provide units etc.

The issue of whether or not dyslexia 'really exists' is academic as for the purposes of SEN dyslexia is categorised as an SpLD. It makes sense for the LA to identify the cheapest needs as the primary one. Ironically, my LA sought to argue that dyslexia was DS1's primary need.

Your LA is well known for poor dyslexia provision beyond off the shelf Wave 3 interventions in m/s. If this does not work they have nothing else. Hence, it made sense, to try and identify need to fit their existing provision.

Singy - it would be interesting to see the proportion of parents that sought indi reports related to school versus parental application and at what stage in the SA process they sought indi reports.

I had little choice but the get an indi EP report for the initial application. This was denied, twice, but then SA was carried out. As the SA process had not been thorough (to say the least) I then got indi SALT and indi dev paed reports prior to appeal. After appeal I then had to get a further indi EP report and OT report done to counter the pre-tribunal hearing LA assessments by comm paed, SALT and LA EP.

There must be data relating to the number of applications that can then be compared to the number of SA commenced. Also how many initial refusals result in Appeal, how many progress to hearing, how many SA are granted before hearing etc?

zzzzz - it would be interesting to see the stats married to those relating to appeal. Not only how many of the 3% whose SA results in a NIL appeal the LA result (and how that appeal progresses) but also how many of the 96.6% who get a statement for the first time immediately appeal, which parts of the statement, or appeal at AR etc?

I thought the stats you want to see were already out there in the public domain. Didn't someone publish a link to some spreadsheets for an LA by LA breakdown some years ago.

SENDIST in the annual report used to give some stats too.

Our LA decided (finally realised) years ago that ASD was costing them a fortune as they had to pay foe indie provision out of county for some of the most needy. it then set up a 'base' attached to a mainstream school and when that was over-subscribed it set up another.

And - going off subject a tad - that's another thing that is not 'joined up'. What's to stop an LA just relying and paying for provision set up by a neighbouring LA? Could work out cheaper for them by outsourcing in this way and paying a set fee rather than paying the pensions etc of the base employees ad infinitum?. No wonder the provision is so hit-and-miss. Especially as one former LA Head of SENs took the Parliamentary Committee that he didn't believe in Statements. and

Yes, my LA were totally and utterly tried to make parts 2 and 3 fit part 4; and fitting my son around an existing (cheap) resource (which according to them, only cost £575 pa). My LA does not believe in dyslexia so don't have any primary school resources in the county for dyslexia whatsoever, and very limited resources for secondary. But the LA then went on to argue that they have many other severely dyslexic children in this speech unit. The FOI proved this to be a lie so this suggests that there possibly are other undiagnosed dyslexic children in this unit, but their parents have been so beaten by the LA, that they took the crumb of provision within the speech unit and so their child has undiagnosed/unstatemented dyslexia/SpLD.

Sadly, for those with severe dyslexia/SpLD (myself included), whether it exists or not is not an academic argument but a life long condition that impacts every area of life. This argument has been going on since the 70s when I was diagnosed and I find it absolutely incredible that the same old argument is trotted out by LAs over 30 years later.

If SpLD/dyslexia was treated more seriously, then the stats would show the true extent of children with SpLD/dyslexia difficulties. As it is, because of this misconception and lack of intervention, the stats aren't reliable. If these children were properly identified, then counties such as mine would have to put proper dyslexia provision in place so wouldn't have tried to shoe-horn a severely dyslexic child into an existing provision. I really do wonder how many other dyslexic children have been so shoddily treated and given inappropriate provision

TOWIE - didn't mean to suggest that the experience of being dyslexic is not of great import but that any argument about the nature of dyslexia per se is irrelevant in this particular context as the categorisation criteria of need firmly places dyslexia within the category of SpLD. Unsuitable placement/peer group etc.

Wet - poring over the spreadsheets it appeared that the information was provided in a way that allowed limited analysis. You can find out the number and percentage of SEN by primary need, by LA, by placement etc but not data prior to the undertaking of SA/provision of statement or appeal data.

Towie I am dyslexic cant even spell that! I was told it doesn't exist and have never been given a formal dx.

This has spurred me on to do ds his sa. After this week is over!!

Towiela the parents of dyslexic children in mine ( and yours) LA usually go private for assessment and private tutoring, in one case church members actually contribute - appalling!

Babiki - yes I followed the private assessment and private tutoring myself for 4 years until it proved that all it was doing was giving my DS extreme anxiety and pushing him towards a nervous breakdown. His dyslexia is so severe that support has to be embedded in everything he does

He also has other SENs, which doesnt help, but the dyslexia is the chief barrier to his education

I honestly don't see the point of Notes in Lieu. They seem utterly pointless and not worth the paper they are printed on!

Of those assessed it would be useful to know what proportion were school versus parental application, whether this was first, second etc application, assessment, appeal etc - the whole story.

I think it would be useful for parents to know how many apps are initially refused etc.

I went from SA+ to OCC Indi ss in 9 months - do parents realise that this is a possibility? Do they trust the school and LA saying this is not possible?

The possibility of achieving perceived alternatives can be crucial to motivation to keep on keeping on following dismissal.

I would love to know how our process was counted by the LA - refused to assess so appeal paperwork put in, LA backed down immediately. SA carried out and NIL issued - appeal paperwork put in and LA backed down immediately and issued a statement. So, do they count that as a statement issued or not? I suspect there will be a fair % where the LA tried to get away without issuing in the hope the parents would accept a NIL. I would also be interested to know the % of statements where an appeal is put in to challenge the content and/or placement, whether or not the LA back down or it goes to tribunal. I reckon some stats from the SEND tribunal would make for some interesting reading.

Alot of people in my LA get refused SA for children who will very obviously fail at action and action plus because they must try and fail first (and delay the inevitable statement). So the 97% ignores the number who apply for SA and get refused. Schools here have to produce about 2 years evidence of failure to get a SA. The LA even layer the outreach intervention so identical provision is delivered by 2 teams with different names which is passed off as two levels of intervention even though the staff have identical qualifications and dish out the same TEACCH-lite strategies. It drags the process out longer by pretending level 2 adds something extra to level 1. By the time children get a statutory assessment they have usually reached the point of multiple exclusions, frequent restraint and self harm.

Our SCLN % is way up and ASD on way down - possibly because been a 'strategy' on SCLN recently so awareness is up, training for teachers has been rolled out and poss because the NHS has a 2 year backlog for autism diagnosis so many of those with SLCN actually have ASD but cant prove it. It probably saves training costs on ASD if you label as SCLN as LA can say teachers have had training on that. A few years ago ASD here mostly came under MLD and there was then shock at how the ASD figure was going up (while ignoring the MLD was going down). so until there is consistency in how the labels are used i don't think you can attach much meaning to them.

our lea put a lot of pressure on schools and Eps to not put in a req for SA. I was told by senco and EP dd had to fail for at least a year at sa+ before lea would even consider a req for SA. if I hadnt contacted ipsea then I would have waited to req SA, believing them.
instead I applied and stated the sencop and law in my req and it was accepted. senco and EP were generally really shocked.