LA want to pull ds out of ABA school. Am so scared!

[CantQuiteBelieveIt]

Have namechanged. Heard today that the almighty panel have decided that ds1 (just turned 7) should move from his out of borough specialist school (where he has been from the age of 4) to a local TEACCH one. Something I feared, but never genuinely thought would actually happen. At least not at the KS2 transition stage...he has made huge progress in his time at school, and has only been there a bit over 2 years so I'm in shock right now.

In fact, heard subsequently that our borough has never attempted to remove a child from any SS at KS2. Any fighting has had to be done at secondary transition. Seems like ds1 is to be a test case, after a new head of sen arrived in post a few months ago.

Most of my shock relates to the reasoning for their decision. They are citing a mysterious piece of research which apparently states that children on ABA progs will 'plateau or deteriorate' once they reach the age of 7. Funnily enough they will not give me any more detail see this 'research' and are pushing aside the fact that ds has made his most impressive progress to date in the last few months by saying that in all likelihood he will deteriorate soon, according to the research.

So they are proposing to switch him from the only system of learning he has ever known on the basis of some utterly hypothetical scenario. And this is even more unbelievable considering that they are opening an ABA unit in April, which is taking children up to the age of 11 despite the fact they will obviously be doomed once they hit 7.

Has anyone got any thoughts? It just seems like a bad dream at the moment. Thanks in advance

goodness me - think this would be anyones nightmare - whats pre empted them sending it to panel - have they just picked his case up and decided to do it? or have you just had an annual review.

I know there will be people with more knowledge than me coming along but its screaming judicial review to me at the moment

Is it possible, hypothetically, that the SS is more expensive than the unit, and they're thinking that if they move him to the other school and it fails, then they can put him in the unit?

I'm trying to google for research.

Thanks for the reply. We did have AR yesterday but the panel was simply about changing the statement re the KS2 transfer. Happens at that stage for every child apparently.

It's all a blur at the moment. They didn't blink when I asked for appeal papers and aren't giving me the opportunity to meet with the head of sen.

I'm meeting with our legal advocate tomorrow.. she was gobsmacked when she heard what they're up to. Hope that's a positive sign rather than a negative one!

X post lougle. Yes the SS will be considerably cheaper because it is 1:10 rather than 1:1 (initially) at the unit. I can't imagine what would happen to ds if he is put in a 1:10 situation. It certainly wouldn't be pretty.

Just devastating

And they're working from a 3yr old statement (ds was at nursery) as they haven't bothered making any changes since. Just bonkers

The other thought is that if you pushed this and it went to tribunal, could the tribunal decide that your Statement is not current and that the only way to decide is to do a full reassessment? Then, it's possible, I think, that you'd be pushed onto the EHCP pathway??

I'm just trying to see why they may suddenly do this, other than their concern about your child's progress walking off a cliff edge all of a sudden

Oh god. I take it the pathway isn't a good thing ?

Think the new head has been told to cut costs and when one of the local schools consulted said they could meet needs (based on the 3yr old statement)... and ironically the other school consulted was the yet to be opened ABA unit...they jumped at the chance to save his fees.

And invented research to suit

The only research I have come across like that is ancient and based on the idea that a) ABA can change neural pathways and b) neural pathways cannot be changed after the age of 7.

Both IMO are bollocks and I'm certain subsequent research says this.

I never have understood how ABA is portrayed as some kind of 'thing'. It's organic. ABA could be TEACHH if the evidence for the individual showed TEACHH to be effective. But if that were the case, the ABA model your child was receiving woukd look like TEACHH.

There is some truth in the view that the sort of input that most people call 'ABA' is shown to have limited value after the age of 7 or so. This form of ABA is more correctly known as EIBI (Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention) and is intensive, based on a detailed curriculum as cited in VP Mapp or ABLLS and involves hundreds of discrete trials.
As an ABA professional myself, it is neither useful nor ethical to have an older child working away like this.

However there are myriad ABA based approaches which are beneficial for all sorts of people at all ages-Precision Teaching, Direct Instruction, Active Support and so on. The trouble is, most educational establishments are using them and know nothing of them. Most people only know about EIBI.

Insist on seeing the research they cite. Their refusal to show it is madness. If they won't, do an FOI request.

The ultimate evidence of your child's continued success (or otherwise) with his ABA programme is with the data kept on his progress. What is it? Do you see it? Can you measure it? Is it shared with you?

It needs to be shared with the LEA in a way they understand. Your ABA team/professional should be doing that.

'The trouble is, most educational establishments AREN'T using them and know nothing of them'.
Apologies for typo there.

Don't panic. We had this 6 weeks after we won ABA at tribunal and then again at first AR.

It is all about budget cuts, saving money and new Head making impact. You are expensive, they think you are a quick way of saving money, they would have to cut back 10 other statements to save the same money.

Tribunals don't like to move children who are doing well and making progress. When they do the case usually boomerangs back 18 months later.

What I would suggest is you sit tight and ask them to explain in writing, giving detailed reasons for their decision. Don't prompt them. This is what you are going to have to appeal / JR against so keep your powder dry and give them a chance to hang themselves.

Their reasons are likely to be weak, back of a fag packet stuff because as you say its being dreamed up to support the decision they have made, the decision isn't based on any real evidence. Thats what you want, you don't want to say anything now which will make them improve on their reasons, you want their reasons to be ill thought out. Thats what any tribunal is going to read.

Then you collect your evidence to rebut it. You FOI them to death for all their outcome data from TEACCH school, info on own ABA unit, when they got they research and when all their EPs discussed it and decided it was valid etc etc. You will most likely find the SEN officers are doing this of their own accord and not on any recommendation of a professional involved with your child. Did any prof recommend it at AR?? The SEN Officer cannot make up their own expert recommendations they are admin staff not experts - they must collect and act on evidence not make decisions on their own. You can ask them for their own guidance for SEN officers (and count in how many ways they have breached it). If any prof have recommended it you ask to meet them to discuss their advice.

When they realise what a nuisance you will be they will probably back off as they will realise you will take up so much time and legal costs over the year it would take to get rid of your programme that there are easier pickings to be had elsewhere.

Replies much appreciated.

Moondog, evidence of progress isn't a problem. School takes abs rev

Well there is nothing to worry about then.
Agnes speaks absolute sense (as always).
It is the whim of some bovine bureaucratic, baring his teeth.

Oops. School takes and records meticulous data. It isn't shared with parents as a rule but I know it exists and could be produced at any time. Ds1 has made remarkable progress on every front and that is an objective statement, looking at the evidence, as well as a proud mum boast.

Agnes, the Sen officer was only passing on the verdict and the sole reason she gave was the EP's discovery of his convenient research. I have no clue who the EP is, just that he's male. He has certainly never met ds and in fact no one from the LA has set eyes on DS for over 3yrs. They have never turned up to any AR, and I'm assuming it will reflect pretty badly on them that they couldn't be arsed to attend yesterday's AR, when they were proposing to remove him from the school.

I know he is nothing but a name , and a money drain, as far as they're concerned, but I still thought they would appreciate the need for some vaguely solid rationale before they pulled his placement. One invisible piece of research just seems surreal.

All 5 profs at AR recommended ds stay where he is. And outlined why in great detail

The FOI requests are a brilliant idea, thank you. I am going to be nuisance of the century :-)

I think you're in my LA/joint LA. If so I am finding quite a collection of this age group with transition issues.

Yes I am Star. LAs shortly to complete twinning, and head of sen is currently the same.

Seems she has arrived with quite an agenda, but I wasn't too worried because several children I know at ds's school from one or other borough have been waved through to secondary v easily. Maybe she decided to become a hardass from now on. Is v interesting to hear other children are having transition issues.

Depressingly, seems to show their motivation for setting up the ABA unit is little more than financial expedience, which doesn't bode well

Everything has to make financial sense and nothing wrong with that.
Public money should be spent wisely.
Our joint mission is to show that behavioural provision is cost effective.
The research Eldevik did recently in Norway has shaken things up greatly.
He did low intensity EIBI (if you see what I mean) with exactly the same resources as the usual dismal 'eclectic' provision.
His cohort came on leaps and bounds compared to the other.
No surprise there.

A couple of other BCBAs have a similar piece of research in preparation. Boy, the outcomes are fantastic.

The ABA unit is hugely oversubscribed both with and without consent. IMO it was set up to get kids off home programmes and I doubt is the plan for yours.

I am guessing that this is the work of BS as they like to 'send messages' to families behind that should they fight and win provision, it won't last.

It isn't about your child. It is political and strategic and IMO evil.

Having said that, if you can hold on tight it's the message that they want to send i.e that no child is safe, and they are probably less bothered about 'actually' removing the placement.

Yes I think you're right Star. Despite how upsetting it is I know it's not personal. They haven't been anywhere near ds or his placement for years, so it can't be.

And I definitely agree it's about sending a message. No one is safe, not even ones who were sent relatively recently to an independent SS.

Btw, sorry for 'outing' you. It just rang a lot of bells.

Nothing surprises me, my LA used a research paper which was written in Danish and which they couldn't read as a reason to remove ABA.

One bit of research is surreal. It is why they won't go through with it - and if they do they will have the tribunal panel's backs up before they even get through the door. Tribunals (generally) understand these are real children, not pawns in some game.

Sit back, get it in writing, then respond. But get their reasons in writing first so they can't add new ones later.

Then you can write back and say how its so ridiculous you will be taking legal advice to JR the decision.

You can then ask the EP to send you his analysis of the research base for ABA and TEACCH and meet you to discuss his findings .

And yes it will look appalling they have not gone to the AR!!!
How stupid are they.

The other thought is that if you pushed this and it went to tribunal, could the tribunal decide that your Statement is not current and that the only way to decide is to do a full reassessment? Then, it's possible, I think, that you'd be pushed onto the EHCP pathway??

I don't think the tribunal has power to do that. If you were appealing against the current statement, you should get your own assessments and that could be used as evidence for any changes to the statement that are needed - therefore a full reassessment is unlikely to be necessary.

No-one can be pushed into an EHCP before the new Act comes into force which, at the earliest, is likely to be September - I have heard rumours that it may now be later than that.

No worries Star. Not like anyone's going to really identify me ( touch wood!)

I am loving your suggestions Agnes, thank you so much. That Ed Psych is going to rue the day he tried to mess with ds's life chances.

Am going to work on getting them to put their reasons in writing but the case officer said nothing can be done til Tuesday as she only works Tues/ Wed ( and strangely no one is able to cover her in her absence under any circs) and she ignored 2 emails today so I don't hold out much hope that she is going to treat me with even a modicum of respect. Gah !

Ok, so I just met with FS and it seems my situation is v bleak. I'm beyond devastated.

It appears the stated aim of the new SEN Head is to remove every child currently in out of borough provision at a key stage transition. They are going to revert to the tribunal-heavy way they operated 8/9 years ago before the previous Head was brought in specifically to reduce tribunals.

Apparently I am just very, very unlucky. FS says in 2-3 years time it will come full circle and they will want to reduce tribunals, but for now they have become extremely hardline.

I can't even begin to think what I am going to do with ds now. He cannot go to the other proposed school, of that I am sure. Every iota of progress would be lost. All feels pretty black right now