What happens after Tribunal Hearing?

[KOKOagainandagain]

The LA conceded on the day with DS1 plus he was out of school and placed in a new ss after hearing so I don't know what to expect.

I know the LA has 5 weeks to issue an amended - presumably to take account of time to put in an appeal if desired - but what do the school actually do when placement is not appealed?

Since the Hearing on the 8th December and the ruling issued on 16th there has been no communication with the school. The HT refuses to even acknowledge presence and if it were not from the looks of death from teachers that have had no contact with DS2 as he only joined the school in year 4, I could begin to think that I had imagined the whole thing.

The ruling specifies communication with parents - daily report back in home/school book and weekly meeting. When should this start to happen? Should it already be happening or can the school wait for the amended statement or do they then have another additional 2 months before they have to put the provision in place?

What did the LA concede? Issuing a plan?

We had a similar issue! Dd3's school were supposed to set up a meeting as soon as possible after the decision notice and then offered us a date 3 weeks later!

Sorry - not clear.

I have just been to tribunal for DS2 which was just an appeal for parts 2 and 3 and so I am not sure what happens next. I previously went to tribunal for DS1 but this did not progress to Ruling as the LA conceded part 4.

The Ruling I have just received is also very vague wrt staffing as I have previously posted: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/special_needs/2541055-Dont-really-understand-Tribunal-ruling-blush

I am trying to do what Agnes suggested in the above thread as previously it was always argued that it was not possible to do x or y as the TA was busy or just plain not there. But I am concerned that the Ruling allows space for interpretation and would like to know how I should expect a school to respond to the Hearing if they rather than the child needed the support.

He previously had a statement for 15 hours in total, all of which was 'used' in out of class interventions (7.5 hours break support, Lego Therapy, Friendship Group plus 1:3 in PE, art and music). This cost the school nothing, playground support was not real (TA on duty keeping an eye on him) and the groups and 1:3 support were already delivered before DS2 even joined the school. Previously, there was no in-class support other than access to the class TA in english and maths which are taught in the morning. In the afternoons, there is no class TA employed (apart from 1:3 in PE etc) so he didn't even have access to a TA.

The Ruling states 20 hours in class 'dedicated' support in addition to 1:3 and break support/out of class interventions. The school have presented the class TA to tribunal as if she were a 1:1 LSA and the ruling does not make it clear that the dedicated LSA cannot also be the class TA. Of course, if this is left to the discretion of the school they will obviously argue that the class TA can be DS2's 'dedicated' support and, guess what, she already is.

Well I think it has to be in place from the final five week deadline. Really they should do it straight away.

My statement still isn't being followed. The SLT also seems to be only going in for 30 minutes but as the judge didn't not specify and refused to even when IPSEA quoted law there's nothing I can do. I should be meeting with the SLT on Monday so I will check.

I don't know what to advise. How long will you give it before you decide he needs to move? Again my LA said they would name his current school ( at my request as they named a random school in error). They didn't change it though and I might well move in year four. Depends if they get funny at AR.

I never talk to any school staff now. Just his CT about non Sen but urgent things ( she is being unusually very pleasant to me).

No IEP, no meeting as stated in statement. Most of it is being ignored. Think that go in my favour if things go wrong.

I can't do anything about any of this. I'm not appealing again. Complaint to LA and governors Both went nowhere. Ds tbh is doing so much better. He really only needs the SLT to learn to type.

I have no faith in the system. It's just a game. You might be better starting a fresh

The school may not get the funding (if they are getting extra) until the amended EHCP is issued. But in your shoes I would want some reassurance the school is in touch with LA, has sorted funding and is perhaps recruiting someone dedicated? Presumably their current TAs are already allocated.

You are probably going to have to speak to SEN officer and find out what they are doing as its their job to make sure the provision happens. For e.g. ask straight out how is the 20 hours funded and do they know if the school has advertised the position yet etc.

But yes a good school would be putting measure in place and keeping you informed.

Good idea above. What's your case officer like?

I've never spoken to DS2's case worker - he does have one but all communication is with the senior member of staff who represents the LA at tribunal. She is fully aware of the problems we have had with the school and was present at the meeting where the HT lost it and the SENCO admitted that they had removed all provision put in place by the LA learning support weeks earlier ready for hearing. This meant that the witness statement of current support which had been submitted to tribunal was completely wrong.

The school was determined that they would go to tribunal arguing that DS2 had no needs (and therefore they could not/were not meeting the original statement) whereas the LA wanted the provision of the existing statement to be in place so that they could defend the appeal by arguing that this was sufficient.

The LA are infinitely more reasonable than the school. We asked that communication with the school was mediated by the LA learning support but unfortunately the role has been abolished due to cuts. The school is unbelievable - as soon as the LA turn their backs, they secretly remove provision. All of the provision mentioned as 'what helps me' in the pupil views collected by the LA and included in the WD had been removed. The SENCO had to admit at Hearing that the school had removed all reward from the token reward system because they thought DS2 was getting too many rewards, and, that despite their claims that parents are over-involved and they tell us everything and don't need communication to be specified, we had only found out by accident, weeks later, from DS2.

Unless we move house I can't move him because alternative schools (we live in a rural area) have also said no and the LA won't force them. The next nearest school which was our preference would not even let us visit prior to hearing (HT phoned to shout at me) and so we had to abandon the appeal of part 4.

Oh ok sorry to hear that. All my schools are within a five mile radius. All church schools so all know my current HT well.

I have found that I have no choice but to not talk to school or senco at all. Told them they can communicate via DH ( who also doesn't talk to them either but if needs be he will).

The way I see it the school lie to me ( well the HT does). Although the school underplay ds needs they actually do a lot. What they do is good ( but not enough - I couldn't win any 1:1 or a funded statement so I have to accept that). They are set that know know best so I am on a loosing battle. Because it's all non funded.

Can you get the LA to tell you the funding amount and what the school spend it on? Don't talk to the school just the LA?

When does he move up? Two years? Can you get more evidence that needs are not being met and get a taxi into further out school? ( toddler goes to a Sen nursery by taxi 30 mile round trip)

DS2's school don't just lie to me but act in bizarre ways to accommodate my 'madness'. They insist that DS2 has no needs at all and are constantly commenting that 'you would never know he had a statement' etc but then perform a pantomime of unnecessary support for show and to present as evidence of how wonderful they are despite DS2 not really needing the support.

e.g. the DC had to learn and perform a dance routine at a local arts venue. DS2 has lots of dyspraxic difficulties and was very upset that he just couldn't copy 'easy' moves. The DC were at the venue from 10 am to 8 pm. The class TA was not present but stayed at the school.

otoh on Sports Day it is customary for parents and their DC to have a picnic lunch prior to the games. The class TA made DS2 stay with her until she could hand him over to me and DH. She then asked if it was OK for her to go and sit with her family and reassured us that she would be 'just over there' in case we needed her help! Er, I think we can cope.

I was hoping that the Ruling would specify 1:1, the school would have to recruit support for him and so there would be no financial incentive to keep minimising need in order that the class TA could continue to be the class TA. The trouble is that the cost delivering the Local Offer is taken to be equal to the entire delegated SEN budget.

Will phone IPSEA on Monday for further advice (and Coram Legal) but may end up appealing to upper tribunal on the basis that the ruling is not sufficiently clear (L v Clarke and Somerset County Council 1998).

Basically the staffing section wording that must now be included in the statement refers to 'dedicated LSA' - no stuff about individual, small group or whole class which appears to mean 1:1 who must be a different person to the class TA.

However, the earlier sections of the ruling specifically state that 'dedicated' is used to convey more specific support than 'hover' but appears to suggest that this is less than 1:1 as it states then states that 'dedicated' means first priority on the TA - i.e. suggestive of priority access to class TA.

The trouble is that the term 'dedicated' has only ever previously been used in connection with 1:1. And in common use in English dedicated means 'exclusively allocated to' not 'priority access to'.

And, if that were case why does the staffing section not say just say that.

I just wanted it all to be clear but the tribunal appear to have added more confusion - and left it to the school to decide whether or not support is needed.

I think your ruling is much like mine. Very fuzzy and bordering on unless. I did think about upper appeal as well but I was arguing over peanuts. The LA said they would deliver with the specifics ( will find out when I talk to the SLT).

I do personally wonder if tribunal is becoming more of a watered down shambles as more and more parents are having to appeal as more severe and complex kids are being pushed into MS as SEN placements are getting fewer ( population grows and all local schools have been expanded. No expansion at any county SEN schools).

My and neighbouring county are sending physical ADHD and ASD kids ( diagnosed at 2 Ffs!) into mainstream with no ehcp. I joined a local meet up group and I honestly dispair for those kids.

I dispair for my toddler. Where will he end up? I viewed a high complex severe needs school ( as no one has told me if ds is severe but he's in a severe nursery). They have physical needs there too. Kids who need very very high intervention. Head told me that even the worse kids routinely don't get in. So where do they go?

I think the provision has to be in place from the date of the amended statement.

i think speak to LA. The legal duty to provide what is in the Plan falls to them. They may say they delegate the day to day etc to school & school has the nec funds - but if you say i do not trust school to do it and i want you to monitor it then LA should take some steps as otherwise if you had to complain later e.g. to LGO about the provision not being in place it would be difficult to defend if LA knew your concerns. As the LA wasn't happy with the school at tribunal either it may be willing to for e.g. check a TA is recruited.

The other thing is you may find other schools more willing now the tribunal has made a decision and they won't get caught up in an appeal esp if there is ring fenced funding from LA for the 20 hours.

I think you need to get LA to say what they expect the school to do following decision and see if that fits with your view (& get it in writing).

Sometimes when you have won at tribunal other schools are willing to reconsider

I have spoken to the LA who tell me that they are going to send out an amended draft Statement next week for parental comment. They have to do this to meet the statutory deadline. I thought that they had to issue an amended Final - the Statement has to amended according to the Order??

The school are continuing to be arsey. The ruling specifies a weekly meeting with the class teacher but the HT has replied to email saying that the CT is not available at 3.30 on Friday (which should make viewing his work at that time interesting if he is lying). He says that they haven't received any documentation and that once they do 'we can look at the provision required' and that they will be in touch 'once the provision outlined in the amended statement is clear'.

So the school will definitely not put in place provision until they receive the final and will then no doubt argue over exactly what provision is required.

Should I forward this to the LA? Should I/can I ask the LA to issue an amended Final rather than a draft? Will it really take 6 weeks from draft to final?

Sorry for all the questions and TIA

Agnes - I have also been in communication with the CT about the TRS. First of all they only had targets with no rewards. Now they have rewards but they are so expensive that DS2 can only earn 10 minutes of computer time if he performs 8 different targeted behaviours 50 times over a week. This increases to 125 times if he has one prompt, 250 times if he has two prompts and 500 times if he has three or more prompts and is similarly increased as targets are faded. Absolutely perfect behaviour would be needed for one week, then two weeks, the three weeks etc. This is taking the piss.

I have given my feedback to the CT and then wrote

"These problems, and the ones detailed previously, appear to result from the assumption that the support should continue to be delivered by the class teacher rather than be delivered by a dedicated LSA. However, objective 2 (DS2 needs to extend his attention and concentration skills, so that he can access tasks to his full potential, maintain his engagement and complete a task independently, particularly adult led or directed tasks”) of the Statement amended following Hearing, clearly states “An LSA will provide support … to maintain attention on task …”. It has been agreed that the “established TRS is used to enhance concentration in independent and adult led tasks” and to “… increase motivation and hence written output where DS2 understands the required task and has all the necessary equipment”.

As delivery of reward is an integral part of the TRS, and as DS2 has 20 hours support per week from a dedicated LSA, to include support for attention and focus, there is no reason why rewards have to be so expensive so that DS2 is only able to afford to buy 10 minutes of computer time per week before any fading commences, or, can only be delivered once a week.

There is also no reason why there must only be one period of 5/10 minutes independent working during an hour-long class. 5/10 minutes independent working is a short-term target. The long-term objective should be for independent focus and working for the duration of all classes."

So there!! They already hate me so I have nothing to lose.

Would the LA have sent a copy of the Ruling to the school or would they just send them the amended Statement?

The la should issue a final within five weeks of the hearing. No draft. No room for the school to see if they can meet it.

JR time?

Thanks 2boys.

Can you link to any document which says this?

Unfortunately it looks as if they are right about issuing a draft. The regulations say that they must issue an "amendment notice" within five weeks, not an amended final statement. The regs make it clear that an amendment notice is a notice accompanying a copy of a proposed amended statement. I must admit I was surprised, in my admittedly limited experience the vast majority of LAs just send a finalised statement.

I suspect all you can do is to check the draft against the decision as soon as you receive it and send it back with a request that they send the final version ASAP.

I haven't checked the new regs, I really hope they've plugged that hole!

I should have said - that comes from the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001.

Fuck! You are right gruntledone

I have just phoned Tribunal and they confirmed that the LA can send a proposed within 5 weeks and gave me the number for the ombudsman.

I thought that when you got your written desision it comes with a "what you can expect next" document that says it has to be issued in five weeks? I just presumed that meant final? How long has it been? If past five weeks I would inform them you seeking to start JR proceedings

If it's past five weeks don't boover with the ombudsman. You need to go through the LA complaints procedure first. JR would be faster and a gauranteed win

It's five weeks on Wednesday. Tribunal initially said the LA has to issue an amended final but then after being put on hold was told that the LA can send a draft after five weeks but they did not know the timetable thereafter. They said the ombudsman would know the timetable.

I phoned the ombudsman and they knew fuck all. They said phone IPSEA.

The only info I can find is that there are five weeks to 'amend the statement' - no mention of it then becoming a new proposed but no mention of the word 'final' either.

Nobody seems to know and are not able to point me to any information that could answer the question.

I can't book a call with IPSEA until Monday. I will call Coram (again) tomorrow.

I thought you had to go through the complaints procedure before you could JR. I need to read up (again).

This is relentless

we got a final within 6 weeks - maybe the tribunal order said it had to be within 6 weeks I can't remember

ds gets rewards about every 20 mins!

it has to be about building success - so making the target where he is currently at or one step above

i guess you are stuck with school waiting for the final

where does it say 6 weeks from draft to final?

The information sent with the Order on 'what happens next' says that the statement has to be amended within five weeks as does the Regulations gruntled referred to.

I can't find any information on timelines following the issuing of a proposed following Hearing (which suggests that the Tribunal expects a final to be issued).

Assuming therefore the same timetable as the early process would be 15 days for comments and then a further 6 weeks to issue final. This logically can't be the case though because all the info then refers to the right of appeal to Sendist.

I think they are taking the piss and continuing to delay because they know the school will not deliver provision ordered by the court.

I think it may indeed be JR time.

Update: I have spoken to Coram and the LA.

The LA have had a change of heart and are now going to issue an amended final.

in your face