Proposed statement help please - what do you think about these?

[DontputyourfingerinthejellyNel]

I am hoping some of you can help me with some of my objections to the proposed statement. Please if anyone can tell me what they think, are these acceptable for 3b?

"Daily exploration of food through texture and taste"

This is in response to fact DD is fussy with food and only eats quite a narrow range of foods. She has ASD and I suspect that this is partly not liking new things, partly sensory. I am concerned as it does not specify anything more than this. She is not under an OT. I fail to see how this target can be effective if it doesn't say who is carrying it out or who will oversee it. Also DD is stressed at unfamiliar foods. Should I challenge this?

Another target involves fine and gross motor skills. DD does not have an issue here. She is 4 and doesn't always hold a pencil properly. The EP saw her for half an hour and noted this. She then put it in her targets which they copied and pasted. However she has no other record of this being a problem. Should I leave this alone or challenge?

Is "Adult supervision during outdoor play" sufficient or if not, what should it say?

My main point is that staffing, training, etc is not specified. It says something like "Consistent, individual support" and "Adult support..." and suggests they get whole school funding. She currently has 1:1 full time and school have repeatedly have stated that she needs this. On at least ten occasions. Am I advised to challenge this and how would I do so?

I would be truly grateful for any input as I haven't got through to any advice lines and need to sort it.

I have no experience of what should be on a statement, but my reaction to the food part would be to object strongly. This is something that has to be dealt with carefully and a bulldog in a china shop approach would most probably be negative.
re: the pencil grip. I'd say it's early days and it can change so keep it in there just in case.
re: play.. what do you want it to say or think it should say? You don't get if you don't ask. If you think she needs more than that then don't be afraid to say.
Good luck

Thanks for your reply, Jerbil.
I think the statement about adult supervision during outdoor play could apply to all 4-year old children actually. Or am I being too sensitive there?

Yes. If even the school want her to have full-time 1:1 then you need to challenge it.

Your other points are valid to.

As for adult supervision at break times, in what way is that over and above provision for any other child?

And also consistent adult support. A 4 year old should never have anything less than this even if they have no difficulties.

Thanks, Starlight. Those are exactly my thoughts. What wording do you think would be appropriate then?

DD will be supported full-time by a 1:1, exclusively for her and trained to x level with x numbers of years experience of working with x difficulties. He/she will have experience working with and implementing strategies recommended by External Therapists.

DD will receive Direct Intervention from a qualified Occupational Therapist who will visit her weekly to work on her difficulties surrounding food. The therapist will write a weekly plan and train the 1:1 in delivering this daily.

DD will receive 1:1 explicit teaching during all break and playtimes as these are not breaks for her but extremely challenging times due to her poor social skills. This teaching will focus on interacting with other children and will begin on a 1:1 basis with the adult supporting to, extended to groups of 3 or 4 children as she develops.

Something like that. They'll laugh at you when you ask though.

Thank you for that! I wish that's what it said - I can just see their faces now .

I have typed out a formal response, stating my main objections as being the statement not being specified and quantified, and most importantly the staffing not being specified or quantified. I have included about 20 quotes from all through the reports which support 1-1 full time provision but were not included in sections 2 or 3. I have also included my objections to the food quote and the other things that I am disagreeing with.

Does this sound OK?

"I have typed out a formal response, stating my main objections as being the statement not being specified and quantified"

This LEA have issued an unlawful statement doc anyway as it is supposed to be both specified and quantified as per case law. They know the law and it is no excuse.

The LEA may well back down but it could equally become a situation for a Tribunal if they refuse to budge.

Right, it is emailed now [confused.
Thanks for your encouragement, Jerbil , Starlight and Attila

Update (for those of you that are still here)

Statement has come back amended.

• Food one has had the addition that it is overseen by key professionals and parents. Another item added that she is supported by consistent member of staff while eating who is aware of the above plan.

• Fine and gross motor skills left in as it's early days yet and it will be removed at next review if it as ppears she doesn't need it.

• Adult supervision during outdoor play is extended to say it is to ensure DDs safety blah blah etc.

• it has also been tightened up to say daily SALT, reviewed by a SALT half termly, and to specify PECS and Intensive interaction and say that it will be done daily by someone who has appropriate training in this area.

BUT they have refused on the 1:1 area. They have said that DD is getting "consistent individual support" and that the school understand this means a key worker. They also used the whole 'not becoming dependent on her 1:1' chestnut.

Comments anyone? The thing has to be finalised in a week. Do I (can I) send it back again or would it be better to get them to finalise. Will they budge? Nobody seems to think they should be specifying hours. The school does give 1:1 to the kids who need it (I know this and the kids I know in DS's y2 class eithout a statement get it too). But they are saying they are happy with the statement (of course) so I am wondering now what is best.

They haven't really budged on the 1:1 issue.

how do you think the school provide 1:1 to kids without a statement?
they rely on the funding from unspecifed statements, to support all the children with sen.
the La finalised dds statement with no 1: 1 hrs specified. the school used the additional 16k funding to employ a TA who spemds about 10mins a day with dd as she is not the worse in the class. there is nothing legally I can do about this. so thats why I am appealing the statement through sendist.

I would send a letter to the director of education to your LA stating as per case law you want the statement to be specified or quantified.
they will probably write back refusing, I would then let them finalise and then appeal via sendist.

I have no real advice but from talking with friends re 1:1 provision, while THIS school is very good at providing it and may understand that it means a key worker, they can pull it if it is not written in so it needs to be the out prevent that and also if you move the new school may not 'understand' that is what it needs. Does that make sense or have I got it wrong?

I agree with you there cauldron. It is very difficult to argue it though when all teams involved seem to be presenting a united front and saying that they never put full time 1:1. Apparently the funding isn't linked to the statement in our district. Apparently the LA have spoken to the school and they understand that "consistent individual support" means a key worker. Apparently I can talk to said SENCo if I need further clarification. The same SENCo who told me that I couldn't apply for a statement anymore when I said in October I was going to apply for one.

Oramum, I also agree. I just don't know how best to proceed. Have I got enough support and cause to go through tribunal? Will it achieve much?

do you have professional reports clearly stating that your dd needs x amount of hours 1:1?
do you know if you are entitled to legal aid?
if so you can instruct a solicitor to arrange indie assessments to quantify and specify provision.

'It is very difficult to argue it though when all teams involved seem to be presenting a united front and saying that they never put full time 1:1.'

Yes. You feel like you must be being unreasonable. However, you are not being. This is a common tactic. It is bollocks. They do it to everyone because it works with a lot. It doesn't work with everyone though and they do know it and won't be surprise when you tell them you are appealing.

'Apparently the funding isn't linked to the statement in our district.'

You're not asking for funding. What has funding got to do with anything? You couldn't care less whether they paid a £m or got a volunteer from the WI, provided they had the right skills to support your child. Resourcing is THEIR problem, not yours and if they aren't good at it they can hire an accountant or Management Consultant.

'Apparently the LA have spoken to the school and they understand that "consistent individual support" means a key worker.'

Well that is lovely. However if that is truly what they mean, they won't mind writing it down will they?

'Apparently I can talk to said SENCo if I need further clarification.'

Of course you can but the statement is supposed to be unambiguous and understood by all, and currently, you don't understand it to mean what they say it does without an interpreter SENCO. That's is just stupid if they stand by the meaning as they say the do.

'The same SENCo who told me that I couldn't apply for a statement anymore when I said in October I was going to apply for one.'

He/She might have thought that was true to be fair. There are a whole lot of myths and propaganda training at the moment.

Email the Director of Education. Head the email 'Unlawful behaviour of SEN Team', explain that the statement is not specified and quantified as required by law and that being forced to SENDIST will trigger you to begin a stage 2 complaint. Ask him/her to require the LA to act lawfully, or demonstrate his support for their illegal actions by asking them to finalise the statement in order for you to take the legal route as well as the complaints route.

Thanks Starlight and Oramum. I am feeling very alone in this at the moment so your replies mean a lot.

The school have stated that she needs full time 1:1 support repeatedly in their report. However they are reportedly happy with the statement (well, yes!) and interpreted it to mean what she is having now. Is there a chance that at a tribunal they will argue that DD does not need full time 1:1? What happens to her support in the meantime?

I am not feeling very brave. I do not look forward to 14 more years of this rubbish! Why the hell can't they play fair?

It could be that the school will receive the funding equivelent to full-time support which is why they are happy. Note THEY receive, not your child.

That coukd be what they mean by not specifying in statements. The school understand the funding process and are happy with the money and their ability to spend it as they choose.

The school could well be marvellous, and very inclusive, experienced, yadda yadda.

However, if it failed OFSTED, burns down, gets a new head, sacks the senco, introduces a policy of rotating staff around rooms on a daily basis, expels your child, goes bankrupt, or is taken over by a dodgy academy chain.....

the 'quantified and specified' statement provision should stay in place regardless.

Its astounding that they still try to get away with such poor statements. I just kept repeating it must be Quantified and Specific. I did not give in until they had put in EXACT hours with the type of qualification that the teachers needed. The amount of detail I made them put must have infuriated them. I was actually still ready to go to Tribunal the next morning until they had written the hours exactly ( I was still negotiating at 4pm the afternoon before ). They may say things they do not do, but they are meant to. I was also told by Senco at school they did not specify hours and that was just because she never saw them do it so accepted it. They are not above the law but they prefer to only do what is necessary if it goes to tribunal (Because they can get away with it.)

So should I send it back again with comments and start looking into tribunal? Is there a chance in hell that they will give in beforehand? I don't honestly know if by pushing the issue they won't become even more arsry in future. If it went to tribunal would I need further evidence or would the original reports I mention above be enough?

Sorry for all of the questions. Mmm1, can I ask whether you feel you achieved a better resuly and was it worth it? Thanks for posting your experience.

Starlight, thanks again. I fear the same. A couple of times I have turned up to find 1-1 absent unexpectedly and one or two days I have found notes saying shes going to be absent on a certain day so "I don't know what you want to do about DD". .

Dontput: why can't they just play fair

They are. These are the rules. Run through in this order only.

(1) Pretend the needs aren't really there
(2) pretend you're meeting them
(3) pretend progress is fine
(4) pretend you're an expert in everything
(5) pretend specific resources exist and are freely available
(6) pretend everything is for the child's own good
(7) pretend the parents are UN-cooperative
(8) pretend the parents are causing the issue
(9) pretend things are suddenly worse and only transfer to the LA's own unit or special school (preferable without transport) will fix the problem