Statement wording at tribunal question?

[Ineedmorepatience]

I have asked about this before but need to clarify!

My friend's Dd currently in nursery, has a very woolly sentence in her statement about hours of support it says something along the lines of

"XXX will be provided with teaching assistant support for the equivalent of 15 hours pro rata for the balance of the financial yr"

They put this sentence in all their statements and expect parents to be happy with it! But it is clearly unlawful as many people said on here last time I asked.

So far they havent conceded and my friend is now worrying about what to enter as evidence!

I have told her to write a working document with exactly the wording that she wants but what else does she need to do?

Hope you can help

Goodness me - I have no idea what on earth this is supposed to mean? 15h a week? A year? Is it 1:1?

I would refer to the section of the SenCop which states that statements must be specified and quantified. The wording they used is unlawful.

Does she have reports which say that her child needs x hours of 1:1 support?

I think there is also case law re quantified/specified statements. Google David Wolfe's Noddy Guide. It is all in there.

Thanks choc

Sorry it might say per week but it defintely doesnt say one to one!!

No, no specified reports!

They still have to specify. Does your friend have time to get private reports. Has she spoken to Ipsea/sossen?

No, no private reports, no time or money and no not spoken to IPSEA OR SOSSEN! Will advise both of those!

All Proffs now involved are in support of her Dd needing a high level of support and school are asking for 25 hrs for september!

The rest of the statement is ok it is just that wording!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

I can't tell whether the author is a fuckwit - trying to avoid specifying provision by using funding language the author doesn't actually understand.

Or it might be the doubly cunning work of a Machiavellian genius - trying to deliberately obscure funding arrangements before you can even get to the point where they avoid specifying provision. A bit like Inception, if Inception had carrots in it.

If I squint hard, I can make "teaching assistant support for the equivalent of 15 hours pro rata" fund the TA's weekend gin-and-temazepam habit for the next 3 months. What a pile of arse.

Like choc says, the case law in DW's Noddy Guide is the best way to refute the wording, plus the wording in whichever SENCOP applied in her case.

Coming up with her own wording - assuming no indie reports, what's she getting now in the way of support, who's delivering it, when and how, and how well is this working?

Brilliant ugger you are on a roll this week

Thankyou will have a look on DW and tell her what you said!

So what have the profs put in writing in their reports? A "high level of support", or something more specific? Can she drop in bits from these reports, or are they too vague?

The who/how/what/when is to establish a minimum baseline. If the who/how/what/when that's in place now isn't enough to prevent her from falling back, then they can't specify or quantify anything less than that, and she can argue that more is needed. If she is making adequate progress with that who/how/what/when, that's her minimum baseline.

Will the school step up and put the 25 hours request on writing, explaining why? And is the nursery attached to the school?

Yes, high level of support, significant needs etc Nothing in figures!

Will ask her about the progress! She hasnt made much in any areas so far this yr!

Yes nursery attached to school but not sure if it will be in writing in time for tribunal!

Senco has refused to appear as a witness for LA!!! But wont rock any boats!!

Just trying to think how it was in our case. We had a statement issued in spring for nursery (only covering Dd's last 3 months at nursery).

The LA then issued 3 months later a new amended statement for school. We also had wholly wording but I didn't appeal the nuersy statement (tribunal hearing woukd have been only once Dd would have started school). I appealed the school statement instead.

I think your friend might find that she also have to appeal the amended statement thst the LA will issue for school.

How far in her appeal is she?
I would talk to Ipsea or Sossen.

That is one of the things she is worried about choc. They wanted to convert to an EHCP now aswell until we pointed out that under the transition rules they are not allowed to while there is an appeal in place!

Final evidence date fast approaching! She was really hoping they would concede and I have been busy with my own stuff so havent been able to help

Is it ASD? or other 24/7 condition?

If so argue that if dc needs support to access some lessons, then dc is excluded from proper access to the lessons where the support is absent.

If they had done a careful analysis and concluded that dc did not need support for eg maths, and got to 15 hours as a result of that, then fair enough.

But they will have plucked the figure from the air, rather than looking at what dc needs to access the curriculum.

And dc is entitled to full time education that meets her needs, not meets her needs for some lessons and not others.

Hope this helps

Thanks senvet it is Asd, severe lang disorder and Spd!

The figure is the number of hours she is in a setting currently!