Proposed Statement - can they say this?

[Sahkoora]

Just reading through DS's proposed statement and noticed something I wanted to check. I have a brilliant advocate who is going to go through it all with me next week and make sure everything is suitable and above board, but this struck me as odd:

"lf DS has been aggressive, he must always apologise and accept his consequence. At times if he is sent home from school, that he experiences this as an unpleasant event and not one which he would wish to repeat."

Surely they are talking about illegal exclusion here? DS has been frequently sent home from school, but they usually make a pretense that he is ill before they ask me to come and get him.

It's possibly awful enough to give you a good outcome at appeal though

This worries me too ...

A high level of adult support will initially be required to support the structures and routines, the delivery of pastoral programmes and to facilitate academic learning. This should be reduced as soon as possible to avoid dependency and allow visual structures and consistent expectations and responses to take its place.

Doesn't this just basically say they can remove his 1:1 at any time without a review?

Yes, They want a child with communication difficulties to be dependent on inanimate objects rather than get his needs met via interaction and through people.

That is fairly typical in proposed statements though. Inanimate objects are cheaper than adaptable and flexible real people.

to remove 1:1 he first needs to get it. does the statement mention anywhere quantified 1:1 support?

No, it doesn't. This should be in part 3, yes? In fact this is the only mention of specific adult support at all.

I'd been warned that this was a trend with the LA at the moment, that 1:1 was being discouraged.

A high level of adult support doesn't mean 1:1. It could mean 1:10 or even 1:15 - in fact it could mean absolutely anything including the CT (1:30) popping over once in a blue moon to check DC is ok!

That is awful.

First, they cannot possible predict in what circumstances it would be lawful and appropriate to exclude your child. As them to set out why they are predicting exclusions in a child's statement and how this equates to provision. Further, exclusions are a punishment in themselves and have to be lawfully justified. The statement cannot direct what should happen should a lawful exclusion situation arise in the future. This is nonsense. Nor can it direct that you, at home, should do anything in particular. Mention that they would do well to acquaint themselves with the statutory guidance on exclusions here

Secondly, you can't use a statement to put in aspirations about withdrawing support. There is some information about the law on statements here Provision should be quantified and specified to meet his needs NOW. They can argue to reduce his level of support if and when he makes progress. But they should be setting out clearly the type of support they will provide to ensure that this progress can be made and setting specific measurable objectives for it.

All LAs use the 'vecro TA' crap. Yes, it is bad for any child to be wholly reliant on a TA but this happens for two reasons in my book:

(i) the child simply can't cope in the setting without high levels of support
(ii) the TA is incapable of teaching skills.

It is more about the school environment and the quality of support than the child.

It is like saying to someone who needs help learning to walk again after an accident that we will take away your crutches and your physio so you don't become dependent.

It's an argument without merit.

Get a lawyer to look at this - see here

That guide to the law by David Wolfe that Towiela has linked demonstrates that it is unlawful for a statement to say

A high level of adult support will initially be required to support the structures and routines, the delivery of pastoral programmes and to facilitate academic learning. This should be reduced as soon as possible to avoid dependency and allow visual structures and consistent expectations and responses to take its place.

I suppose the logic is that it allows the LA to change the status without going through the usual process for amendment and, if the parent disagrees with the reduction in support, they wouldn't have any right to appeal.

Anyway, it needs to define what it means by "a high level" - it it full time 1:1 including break times, or what?

It bloody needs to be! He's had 1:1 at school for a while (excluding break and lunch) and he's still managed to be so awful that school are planning to permanently exclude him.

God knows what he would do to himself or others if they left him to his own devices.

My advocate is a solicitor and I am hoping she will be able to get all this crap ironed out. I hope so, there's no way I can afford any legal advice.

he's still managed to be so awful Never ever say that. You mean, "the school still managed to fail him, despite the 1:1"

(It took me a long time until I realised this was the case for my DC and then I stopped beating myself up about it)

Actually it's so unbelievably bad, it's probably good. Imagine being the LA trying to defend any of that at tribunal

To quote star on another thread, with that level of sh**e "you could ask for the moon on a plate" and they'd have to say yes

Don't waste much time on this. Write some useful suggestions, wait for them to ignore your help, then get them to finalise, and appeal

school pretending that he is ill

Minor head injuries are the main route for this one. Making them call NHS 111 every time 'so you get some advice while I'm on my way' usually puts a stop to it quite rapidly

Excluding break and lunch time? That's when my DS, like many other children on here, most NEED 1:1!

Just seen where the "apologise and accept the consequences" crap comes from. It's suggested by the EP in her report.

Haven't got much of a chance here, have we.

OMG, AND she says the whole bit about experiencing being sent home as an unpleasant event and the bit about high levels of support being reduced asap.

They have lifted it verbatim from her report. HOW can she say that???

I didn't particularly like her when we met. She said to me "Well, he just has to learn to accept adult authority" in a way that I felt as though she thought I was encouraging him not to!

I'd say you had a very good chance actually. It's clearly tosh and a tribunal panel will probably agree. A bloody awful EP report from them is actually very helpful for you.

Though, you'd probably need to get your own EP report done. If you get legal aid this can be done at the taxpayers expense once you have appealed, otherwise sorry it'll be your own expense.

Blimey, are you sure she's not simply a member of the BNP that was mistaken for EP on her job application?

He 'HAS' to learn? Well I agree that he has to learn things, but what brought her to that particular lesson being his most pressing need, and how the frig does she suggest it is taught explicitly.

fcking hell, that's like saying a child with mobility difficulties has to learn to run.
FFS its a disability, the statement should be about helping the child to access the curriculum in order to make progress, be happy, safe & learn.
If it was a physical disability they would install ramps etc, what adjustments are they going to make to help your son learn.
saying he "has to learn" isn't going to cure him or remove his disability which is his barrier to learning.
Oh this makes me SO ANGRY!

If or when you get your own EP, ask them to comment on whether that report is even ethical in professional terms. It might be worth a formal complaint to the professional body.

But it does mean that it just isn't worth arguing with the LA, they will cling to the fact that that's what the EP advises and say they can't look beyond it. Just tell them the whole thing is unlawful and that they must either put it right immediately or finalise the statement so you can get on with an appeal.

Do you think they've got this so very wrong that the report isn't actually about your dc? Maybe mixed him up with a troubled teenager being kicked out of high school for setting fire to the waste bins?

Do you have a common surname?

I agree that it is the worst snippets from a proposed statement that I have yet seen and I have seen a fair few stupid ones.

I'm certain this is actually an advantage for the OP though. No tribunal panel could possibly let that go through, not even one with a dodgy judge (sadly there are a few).

What general part of the country is the LA in?

I doubt it's Herts. They are vindictive and malicious, not stooped.

It must have been a newbie carrot - surely no-one with any experience at all could have written that.
Perhaps it was a 'test document' that was never supposed to be seen by anyone on the 'outside' and was sent by mistake.

In fact I would probably go back to the LA asking if it was a mistake - perhaps they should delay sending it until April 1st!