Again, I just couldn't have done it without Mumsnet as I don't have the brain power.
This is what mine looks like so far sorry long:
As far as I can see this is how it stands:
The LA seem to have proposed a SLCN statement (in terms of primary need) I am looking for it to include ASD as well.
A lot can depend of what our child?s identified needs are and which school is named in part 4 and how helpful they will be. I am assuming this is a MS statement as it seems to be written for his current school.
If they are continuing with something, what is the purpose of the statement? The LEA have not progressed his care in the statement.
The statement looks as if it was written with current inadequate provision in place with needs that it just wouldn't meet. I can't see anything in it that is outside of a normal school daily experience anyway.
A lot of that stuff that should apply to every child in school.
It says under Part 2 Communication
" Ds has a diagnosis of moderately to severely delayed understanding of language in the context of ASD. DS has a diagnosis of a severe delay in spoken language and communication in the context of his diagnosis of ASD."
The severity does not seem to match the provision? Which will my basis of appeal.
I will appeal this part objective 2 the programme for a minimum of 9 visits or the equivalent of 13 hours over the academic year. It just doesn't seem enough. This is what he was getting anyway. SLT needs more than 9 visits if 3 are to be devoted to end of term meetings etc. It needs to be much smarter!
The statement is wholly inadequate and doesn't fulfil the legal requirement to be quantified and specified, not all recommendations listed in reports are included in part 3. Nor does it include the independent reports recommendations?. E.g. SLT needs to visit in school for a minimum of 18 visits annually, equivalent to 36 hours. This will allow for all the language and communication objectives to be met, supported and facilitated.
"DS's language skills are currently in line with his NC levels."They have made this look better than it actually is. What they don't say is they may be in line but educationally he is about two years behind on P levels still.
There is a lot of ?at their discretion" and "will consider" which needs to be removed. The school can say ?we considered" or? we don't feel it?s needed" - therefore unenforceable.
A statement should be quantified and specified, what intervention, who frequently, for how long and who will provide it and what their qualifications are.
I will appeal this statement on the grounds that it is not quantified or specified. It is just all 'access to' 'continue support' 'a level of' etc as this is what is written in those LEA reports. Without any quantification and using terms 'will at their discretion?. How is the provision going to be delivered, who is responsible for what is delivered and then hours and precise description of allocation 1:1 X 30 mins etc. Indi experts have quantified and specified in their reports.
The proposed statement is nowhere close to the provision that I would like for my child. Changing some wording will result in what my child needs but most of this statement is so far away from what he needs that I would have to ask for it to be finalised for appeal.
Even a specified version of that statement won't add much that isn't doable without a statement. I thought the statement was supposed to be a progression of provision to progress his learning. This does not seem to be the case.
It is a statement of educational needs, and then details of the provision required that will meet those needs that are outside what a school would normally be expected to provide.
So all reference to class teacher can talk to him occasionally if she deems it necessary has no place in the statement. What needs to be written down are all the things EXTRA to normal differentiation and classroom practice.
I also do not like the word 'consider' what can you change it to?
'As a requirement of this statement, the class teacher now has a statutory obligation enshrined in law, to CONSIDER something.'
I insist on staff from proper post-graduate qualified teachers/therapists or qualified to a certain level not just named adults.
Part 3 sentences also look unenforceable.
- what is access to? - How will he be able to access it if he is in trouble? will he be in a fit state to? - perhaps substitute for "Adult support will be provided..."
who will write the social stories? are they qualified to do so? - They are useless if not done properly.
LA did do an assessment for Occupational Therapy. They should be able to say specifically what he needs to help him with his sensory needs that are a barrier to his learning that should be mentioned in part 2. There is no link in Part 2 with his sensory problems and other difficulties he is having. I believe his sensory problems are a direct cause which the LEA seems to have overlooked. Part 2 describes him as being very distressed in certain occasions which case they have not added 2+2 together? By managing the sensory problems you can avoid them being a barrier to learning.
Who exactly is going to devise the sensory diet? It looks like the teacher, at her discretion. She is also allowed to 'deem' his difficulties motivational. On what evidence will she rely? Is she qualified to know the difference between motivation and sensory issues?
What is a rewarding break anyway? And is their definitely going to be a named adult present 100% of the time to enable this or is, the 'Named Adult' going to be the class teacher?
What kind of progress are we looking at to make adjustments? How will it be measured?
There are too many vague references to a named adult/ Speech Therapist Speech Therapist Assistant, class teacher/Head/General Teachers etc. Specific names and roles and responsibilities and hours of contact need to be specified so that they can be accountable.
Hope this helps other people too.