DS2 has his proposed statement - now I need help!

[sphil]

DS2's proposed statement arrived through the post this morning. He's not due to start school until September and when we applied for the statement we made it very clear that we wanted to keep the type of school he will attend as flexible as possible. We've now decided to go for a special school and will name it in Part 4. The statement is worded in such a way that it points towards special ed anyway - lots of stuff about access to expert staff, PECS, Makaton etc - so don't think we'll have a problem with them agreeing.

Given all this, should I be worried that nothing has actually been quantified? Part 3 gives a list of 8 objectives, all of which seem very sensible and then a list of the educational provision needed, again all of which are fine. For example

' A SLT programme devised and monitored with the specialist advice and input of the SLT service and delivered by teaching and/or support staff'.

Now I know that our SLT specified that he should have at least 5 inputs per term from a specialist. Is that the sort of thing I should ensure is in the final statement or is it OK to leave it as it is, given that we don't actually have a school for him yet? I know from reading posts on here that it's vital to get provision quantified but is that more important when the child is actually attending a school and you know what you've got to work with?

Confused!

I think that the provisions given are always a little bit ambiguouse as it means its easier for them to be flexible if the childs needs change, if they put 5 times a term..but then your child needs more/less than that then theyw ould need to applp for a change of statement..this way there is an amount of flexibility. but if you are concerned you should definatly ask for clarification.

As for section 4. if its a mainstream school you just name the school you want as they can't refuse a child with a statement (even if they are full they HAVE to make space for a SN child) but i am not entirely sure aboout how it would work with a SN school (dS is in MS) i would imagine you will need to speak to the LEA about that as it may require extra funding.

IPSEA would be helpful to you in this regard and I would run this past them. However, LEA's should in any event quantify provision otherwise it won't be properly enforced.

IPSEA's web address is www.ipsea.org.uk. They have a helpline number you can call. It gets very busy but do try and get through to them.

Thanks everyone - I've looked at Ipsea's website and the Ian Coates letter. I think I will ring Ipsea - we do need to remain flexible as Fattymumma says, but at the same time I want to make sure that it's not too vague. To give an example, one of the provisions reads:

'Opportunities to develop basic social skills, including an understanding of the reciprocal nature of conversation, turn-taking and sharing, through regular participation in small group activities, which may include structured social skills training programmes'.

My first instinct is to change the 'may' in the final phrase to 'will' but supposing the special school deliver social skills in a different (but just as effective) way? And secondly, do I need to specify how often he should be given these opportunities (ie. daily)? Or can I trust a good special school (which it is) to know what they're doing and give him what he needs?

I can imagine getting much more specific once he's actually AT school - is this the sort of thing that happens at the annual review?

"Opportunities to develop basic social skills, including an understanding of the reciprocal nature of conversation, turn-taking and sharing, through regular participation in small group activities, which may include structured social skills training programmes'.

If the above is not deliberately vague on the part of the LEA I don't know what is!!!. No mention whatsoever of quantifiable provision.

I would certainly call IPSEA asap and run parts 2 and 3 in particular past them exactly as it is written on the proposed statement. Have a pen and paper to hand. They will tell you what the statement should say rather than what the LEA want you to read.

The annual review is a review of progress made - it is imperative therefore the statement wording is drawn up properly before it is finalised. You cannot leave any issues re provision quantified to school; it needs to be sorted asap. A badly worded and vague statement is about as much use to your child as a chocolate teapot.

The thing is they may well fight not to put your child in a special school or they may put your child into a special school but then try and get him out a year later. Therefore you have to 'futureproof' your statement. The only way you can do this is by getting part 2 right which then leads to getting part 3 right. Think of it as a flowing system. The special school will of course think of how best to deliver the programmes but you are not there yet. Therefore you must get amounts quantified based on the reports, etc, you have. Obviously if none of the reports have specifically quantified anything then you are a bit stuffed. If they have remember you can take your lea to tribunal. Mine gave in 24hrs before the tribunal over the wording and I have essentially written my child's statement. There is also a huge difference beween a SALT and some LSA with a couple of worksheets - which is essentially all the S&L my child ever received. The LEA will try and put SALT and OT onto 'Non-educational provision' because essentially they don't have to pay for it then - it becomes the dept of the NHS. BUT if it affects the educational progress of the child then Of course it is educational and needs to be stated in part 3. Also provision of this kind is rarely going to be found in mainstream - if it is the LEA will have to 'buy'it in which costs money. Therefore this allows you then to argue for your special school on the basis of cost as well. Ipsea, SOS!SEN or or the NAS can all help people although they rely on volunteers and you haven't much time to appeal. All LEAS also have to produce a final statement by a certain time (February 14th ish this year it was - is it the same for 07?) and they may try and presurise you into accepting their statement - don't let them do this if you are not happy. You have the right to take them to tribunal but there is a huge backlog of tribunals - we applied in April and got a date of 27th September for the earliest date. You also need to submit and gather concrete evidence for your case - this may mean commissioning private reports, etc.

All the best.

"All LEAS also have to produce a final statement by a certain time (February 14th ish this year it was - is it the same for 07?)"copied from post by flyingmum on Wednesday, 22 November, 2006 6:27:57 PM......
can anyone expand on this comment please? is this true??
thanks

Sphil, I would defo reccomend ipsea and not trusting the lea....sorry...keep trying that hotline number...

I understand what you're all saying, but how could that paragraph I quoted be quantified? Should I push them to state exactly how often he should take part in small group activities or a social skills programme?

"Should I push them to state exactly how often he should take part in small group activities or a social skills programme?"

In a word yes. Provision that is not quantified is not worth the paper its written on. Also LEA's are legally obliged to tell you how much provision is going to be made.

Haven't heard about LEA's being made to produce a final statements by a certain time. The LEA I reside in couldn't even get a rewritten statement to me naming the junior school until September!!.

What I don't understand is how parents are supposed to know how much provision a child should get. I'm a teacher by training and even I don't know how much small group work and social skills work DS2 needs. For example, should we get them to change the wording to 'Daily opportunities to develop social skills...etc' ?

My feeling is that he could learn in a small group setting in a special school, but not in m/s. I'm not sure how much 1:1 children get in special school as a rule? In m/s he would need 1:1 all the time to learn anything. That's the central dilemma where this statement is concerned. The LEA EP said that he would support our decision if we decided to opt for special and has written his report accordingly - it's this report which the statement is based on. But I guess many of you with more experience of the system would say that I can't trust this - DS2 may get sent to m/s and then this statement won't be worth anything.

In my ds's sn unit the statement didn't seem to need to be quantified to the same degree as a m/s statement. The provision was much more wrap around and child centred.

My ds with a m/s statement has a more quantified statement as m/s seems to lack flexibility and the financial means to provide the support without it being detailed into the statement.

A statement is appealed against after it has been finalised. I think that you first need to decide the provision and then adapt the statement to that provision. Have you looked at the local provision?

Have just had an 80 minute conversation with an IPSEA advisor - probably the most professional and useful conversation I've ever had with anyone concerned with DS2 since his diagnosis. She confirmed the fact that special school statements tend to be less specific than m/s ones and agreed that it seems nonsensical to rewrite the statement so that it would be effective and enforceable in m/s, if the LEA's intention is to uphold our wish to send him to special school. She did feel, however, that certain words and phrases in Part 3 needed to be changed - all the 'mays' and 'mights' and the 'opportunities for' and 'access to'. She also suggested some very useful additions.

Anyway we've decided to ask for a meeting with our statementing officer to discuss our proposed changes and to clarify the m/s vs special issue. The IPSEA advisor reckoned that there are a number of clues in the wording of the statement that suggest it has been written with special school in mind and said that we could also make changes which make it impossible for m/s to meet his needs, ie by writing that ALL his teachers are ASD trained rather than ' access to ASD specialist staff'.

Thanks for all your advice - will keep you posted.