Would you complain to the SEN govenor?

[KOKOagainandagain]

DS2's school have done an about-turn since the specialist adhd nurse classroom in September and my application for SA (totally predictable but still ).

When DS2's IEP was reviewed in July it was full of comments relating to lack of eye contact, high distractibility, making strange noises, becoming increasing tactile, not responding to his name, not following instructions etc. Despite the targets not having changed, the same IEP has been reviewed again. At the first review in September, the July 'progress' comments were listed as current behaviours. The IEP was not fully reviewed but 'progress' comments were added that directly contradicted previous observations - ie makes good eye contact - or minimises the severity of distractibility and how much educational impact this has.

Two weeks later a new IEP has been issued with the 'progress' comments on the IEP reviewed on 24th October now being listed as current behaviour. The observations of July that are consistent with ADHD/ASD have therefore disappeared and been replaced by observations that all is well. Targets that were not met have been deleted or increased. For example, he had a target to attend for five minutes. He is observed to have a 30 second attention span. Target increased to 7 minutes.

What makes me most angry is the behaviour of his new CT. When talking to the specialist nurse she identified problems with poor attention span, inability to focus, constant distractibility, frequent movement from chair, constant noise making in the form of whistling, twittering and commenting on what he is doing, can answer direct questions although not appearing to be listening, struggles to structure ideas, unable to participate successfully in group work, plays alongside peers with little eye contact or verbal interchange. This is not reflected in his IEP and even when I have asked her direct she has lied to me and said 'oh, no, he always responds to his name' etc.

Also, the new IEP has removed reference to his being identified as having SLCN (narrative delay of nearly half chronological age) by a specialist SALT teacher who came into the school to train the class TA to use the resources she had supplied. A new target was added to his IEP in Spring 2013 but has now been deleted - to make way for a new target on 'taking responsibility'.

The school have totally omitted all mention of the visit by the specialist nurse. It is as if it did not happen. I spoke to the senco the day before I received the new IEP. This new IEP was allegedly to take account of this visit and to reflect an awareness of his advanced position of the ADHD/ASD multi-disciplinary diagnostic pathway.

Whilst he was asking to see my submission (yeah, right) and claiming that he would do all that he could to support application for SA, I mentioned that I imagined the LA would want to know how it had been possible for DS2 to score 2c for Speaking and Listening at KS1 sats in May in light of recent evidence. His CT said it was the assessment of another teacher and that she would not assess him at that level. On the current IEP he is assessed again at level 2c.

The senco/head response appears to be to ignore recent evidence and stick to what he said (filed). I cannot believe that this could be argued to be in the best interests of the child. They have deliberately and systematically constructed a written case for refusal to assess.

I know that this is what schools do all the time but they have done so within a short space of time and are now directly contradicting all that they have said and done in the past and all external observations. Do you think that I have a case to complain?

Sorry for the essay
TIA

That sounds awful.

You can raise it with the SEN Governor, but they won't be able to do anything directly with regard to your DS.

The role of a Governor is a strategic one, not operational. So they could take on board your dissatisfaction and may be prompted to make sure that policies regarding SEN are up to date and functional, but they can't get involved with the practical application of those policies.

If you raise a complaint with the Governors, you should be directed back to the school to use the complaints procedure as listed in the complaints policy. Only if you exhaust the complains procedure and are still dissatisfied, should the Governors hear your complaint.

DH is on the BOG.

As the head is also the Senco we can use some section to raise it with the board.

I know why they are doing this. The CT said DS2 needs a statement to get more support. The LA say not true - use the devolved budget. If is not sufficient, DC on SA+ or going through SA are entitled to the same top up funding as DC with a statement. The Senco has previously said the school cannot afford another statemented child as they would be forced to fund provision.

I know there will be no direct consequence for DS2 but this behaviour has to be challenged. I just want him to attend meetings and have to account for himself.

Can I also challenge the security of teacher KS1 assessments - maybe with the LEA or the testing agency?

Anything to make him sweat and to continue the paper trail of complaints relating to SATs and SEN (admittedly started by me in 2012 )

I know this might seem a little Machiavellian but they hurt DS1, a lot. I have to live with the day to day pain of him boarding during the week.

The LA are completely correct. The funding is available regardless of whether a child has a statement or not, up to £6,000 over and above the AWPU. Additionally, most LAs have a reserved block of funding to allocate in the event of a school having more than its 'share' of low-cost statemented/SA/SA+ pupils, which schools can apply for.

The problem here is that the school can't be forced to put anything in place until it is formally recorded that it is necessary. To get to that point, a bad school will need to be forced.

'A bad school needs to be forced'

The BOG do not consider it to be 'bad' and a recent ofsted report is now good rather than satisfactory. The aim of the BOG is for outstanding. I want to make sure that this is not achieved by 'excluding' DC with SEN.

This is not the behaviour of a 'good' school.

A school can be good in lots of areas and still be bad in others.

Why do you think they are denying your child's issues?

Why do you think they are denying your child's issues?

Crudely because it is cheaper. I no longer live in a world where if only someone else (a professional) will see what I see, or if I construct the perfect argument, or present irrefutable evidence, they will do the 'right' thing. That was the early DS1 world. He is passive, demanding and has meltdowns at home (ie hard work) but is almost mute at school.

DS2 is (too) independent and good-natured at home but a PITA at school.

The situation with DS1 and DS2 is almost perfectly reversed. Until the start of the academic year, when it became clear following observations by SALT and the adhd clinic that the primary need related to attention, that it was severe and had persisted and was likely to persist (ie would cost), the school were the driving force behind all requests for assessment (over 2 years with SALT, OT, EP and recommended paed referral) but have since been backtracking.

I want to complain because with DS1 there was no evidence of backtracking as denial was maintained. With DS2 there is clear evidence of rapid backtracking as soon as the child's needs became apparent and parents applied for SA. It is inconceivable that this was not a deliberate action or is in the needs of the child.

If you think it is a cost-saving issue, then you can go to the LA and say 'I have documented evidence that my child needs x,y, z, but they are refusing to provide it.' The LA can either force the school to provide, or put measures in themselves and charge the cost to the school.

Yes I could (we live in a different LA to the school LA, just to complicate things).

But, I've applied for SA. He has had around 10 different assessments with SALT, OT and EP and numerous classroom observations and is most definitely not a 'mystery' despite being complex. Hence SA is being requested on the basis that, despite the best endeavours of the school, needs cannot be met at SA+.

It looks a little hypocritical to say that a school is doing its best whilst complaining about it. Is there any way out of this? Can I complain to Essex (who would quite likely award the head a medal) whilst praising them to Suffolk?

Nobody from Suffolk (education or NHS) has ever had any contact with DS2. Refusal to assess will be solely based on evidence provided by the school of 'adequate progress, can meet needs at SA'+. The LA might as well send me DS1's refusal letter again as the cut and paste will be the same.