Anyone dealt with a deliberately obstructive school....?

[Youarentkiddingme]

Who will go to every length possible to prevent you from having detail of what they are doing, how they are achieving and refuse to respond to emails and are down right insulting to you when you ask them a question that you can evidence?

How do you deal with it? It's making me feel like I'm going mad. It's making me both laugh and become stressed and on occasions angry because I know they are lying. (I have evidence).

It's making me feel like they are deliberately making things so difficult for me that they hope I'll go away and stop taking an interest in my child's education and expecting them to provide the Sen support they get funding for. (Not on EHCP)

I want more from mine and my DS life from contact checking of information, cross referring everything, fighting, phone calls and more importantly I want my MH back.

Cut and paste from earlier post:

bjk - dyslexia is just different because even more things from the LA will focus on 'progress' as the primary need is 'cognition and learning'.

NC levels are crap to try and show progress because they are completely subjective and as soon as you apply for SA you will find that the school reports 'progress' of one sub-level. 6 months progress in one year is enough to justify refusal.

Read the Rose Review (if you haven't already) dera.ioe.ac.uk/14790/1/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf.

You need to use standardised reading and spelling tests to measure progress. They are objective, take about 5 minutes and can be done 2 or 3 times a year.

I applied for an assessment with DS1 when I only had dyslexia confirmed and so focused on this. He had made no progress at all from end of year 2 to end of year 5 using NC levels. After the initial refusal the LA bod who came to visit and put pressure on the school to do what they ought, said that we needed to look at progress during a Wave 3 intervention like Accelerite/Acceleread (? sp).

Essentially, what you need to do is calculate ratio gain during a Wave 3 intervention. See paste below for an extract to my LA:

'Many UK studies report results not in standard scores but in reading and spelling ages, from which ratio gains can be calculated in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. A ratio gain of 1.0 means that the child’s skills are developing at a normal pace, but they will not be catching up with their peers. Brooks (2007) suggests that ratio gains of less than 1.4 are of ‘doubtful educational significance’, between 1.4 and 2.0 of ‘modest impact’, between 2.0 and 3.0 of ‘useful impact’, between 3.0 and 4.0 of ‘substantial impact’ and above 4.0 of ‘remarkable impact’ (Brooks. 2007, p. 289).

However, Brooks (2007) points out that ordinary teaching (i.e. no intervention) does not enable children with literacy difficulties to catch up, and hence it is fair to presume that, in the absence of control or comparison groups, and where effect sizes cannot be calculated, findings of ratio gains in excess of 2.0 may be taken as good evidence in support of the method employed. Indeed, several studies have shown that, without help, dyslexic pupils progress at around only 5 months per calendar year in reading (ratio gain 0.42) and 3 months in spelling (ratio gain 0.25) (Thomson, 1990, 2001; see also Rack and Walker, 1994). Dr Singleton suggests that in cases of dyslexia the achievement of ratio gains of 1.00 or greater represents substantial progress for these individuals, even though they may still have literacy skills below levels required to access the curriculum effectively.'

Unfortunately the assessment results with regard to reading are confused and contradictory. According to the IEP data, sentence reading assessment was carried out in January 2010 (Salford) which recorded RA 9 years 11 months, CA 9 years, 1 month (+10 months) and in November 2011 (Suffolk) which recorded RA 11 years 0 months, CA 10 years, 11 months (+ 1 month). However at a meeting with the Head/SENCo, we were given a handwritten post-it note with the results of testing in April 2012 (Suffolk), RA 10.02, CA 11.04 (-1 year, 3 months) together with a previously unmentioned and unreported assessment result of testing apparently carried out in October 2011 (Suffolk) RA 9.11, CA 10.10 (-1 year, 0 months).

At least one result is wrong. As the data provided by the school is contradictory it is, therefore, clear that these figures cannot be used to provide any valid measure of progress.

We would suggest that future assessments are 'single word recognition' measures (eg WORD) to enable comparison with data collected by EP, and in order that decoding abilities are properly tested in response to the particular intervention in isolation. Sentence reading tests are a relatively poor, and therefore inappropriate, measure of decoding ability which may be assisted by context and meaning in sentence reading tests. As the objective is to measure the impact of a specific intervention, it is important to use a strong measure in such evaluation.

With regard to spelling, IEP data records assessment in November 2011 (nfer Nelson) of SA 7.06 at CA 10.11 (- 3 years, 6 months) whilst the post-it note recounts September 2011 (nfer Nelson) result of SA 7.05 with CA 10.09 (- 3 years, 5 months) and April 2012 (nfer Nelson) of SA 7.08 with CA 11.4 (- 3 years, 10 months). Thus in a six month period DS1 has made progress of around two months. This represents a ratio gain of 0.3, during the course of a Wave 3 intervention, and is clearly inadequate. This demonstrates that the intervention has been unsuccessful in improving spelling performance. This is commensurate with rate of progress prior to the specific intervention (ratio gain 0.3, July 2010-July 2011) whose effectiveness is being evaluated, and, is similar to that expected by a child receiving no help, rather than the maximum permitted at Action+ level."

Excuse the arseiness - they were pissing me off by this stage.

Thanks keep DS did acceleeread/write! During these types of interventions and daily support he began making 'expected' progress for a child in same year. However he was at a lower starting point! He doesn't do any of this now.

Ds school do use points and levels that correspond to new GCSE systems and final grades. He is predicted the same grade in all subjects as it's taken from the average point score from SAts.

His target points were 29 at end of Autumn term. I don't know what his starting grades were but he got 22-28 in most subjects. It's expected they make 4 points progress a year and his end of year target is 33 or 34 for all subjects. This will be the progress he needs to make to reach his predicted 50 points/6 at GCSE in year 11. His literacy score was 18! I'm struggling to get a definitive answer from school to as whether this target would also be 29 as per curriculum subjects or if it's scaled and recorded using different measures. Also what significance this has. Because to me, if a literacy score is so low it's affecting his ability to communicate his knowledge effectively, therefore, affecting his academic achievement across the board and is not allowing him to reach his best possible outcome.

I have prvious spelling and reading age scores for the past 2 years. They fluctuate up and down when tested between 8-10 years. We couldn't work out why he went backwards and then forwards again to where he previously was

I'm going to have to really think about this one and how to present my case that I don't believe his doesn't have SpLD anymore when school are saying he's fine and have removed his data from the portal. It's my main argument as to why he needs his he's assessed properly.

And the icing on the cake? Ive no legal right for information through a SAR because it's an academy.

There is another law relating to access to school records which I think doesn't apply to academies but, as Polter says, they are certainly covered by the DPA and have to respond to a SAR request. See here for details.

The rightful thing to do with IPA is drink it!

UPDATE!

Obviously things have improved massively

Since I last came here I've worked very hard to write my draft application for EHCP assessment. As school cannot prove they've done everything possible to meet need (and I can tell by things they write they will deny knowing need ) I've also documented everything that's happened since DS got his place at school. This includes the lack of senco to do the pointless IPA transfer, the lady who did stating she doesn't deal with academics (thank you paper trail!), the times I've addressed my concerns re DS regressing, the disastrous meeting in December followed by my actions following meeting being exactly what I was requested to do - yet school disengaging further and very cleverly but subtly ignoring direct questions.

I mean how hard is it to answer "what was DS target score for literacy at the end of Autumn term? Was it X amount like it was across the rest of the curriculum?"

But obviously when they've removed his apparent non existent anymore SpLD from his Sen needs and then post a score that is 11 points lower than his target (if it's the same), and state that expected progress is 4 points per year they are not going to tell me that yes it's his target - because that would be admitting I'm right

There is lots of asking for OT report to update the IPA - you all remember that the IPA is meant to negate the need for professional input right?!
Mostly so that the school can say they didn't meet his needs as didn't know what they were - cynical!
But even without OT report there is years worth of previous IEPs, 2 salt reports, and EP report and an ADOS report with his dx. Plus consultant and neurologist letters.
Plus the previous inputs DS has had, previous progress reports, previous IPAs and previous reading and spelling age results.

Plus there is the fact that there is me! Me who has raised DS for 11 years and knows him well, knows what does and doesn't work because I've tried and failed numerous times until I've got it right. I should be enough according to IPA.
Then there is DS views that have been submitted for previous IPA reviews, the ones he gave me for last meeting - but oh yes! - the senco wouldn't acknowledge them! Plus the new ones I've done with him this week.
I recorded our discussion this time and have made sure I have permission from him on recording to do so so that I can complete the forms later.
I'm working my way through it and typing the transcript of discussion - for accuracy purposes you understand?! Nothing to do with the fact DS reveals lots of massive failings with school to deal with simple problems that have arisen. And of course I have not photocopied the communication book that backs up what DS has says

I've also spoken to head of Sen at LA. I was very clear in what has happened so far. I'm pretty sure she was shocked as the Sen inspectors came up in discussion. So did her reaction to Sen support only being outside of school hours - she actually questioned that she'd heard that right.

I have informed school that due to DS continued regression in behaviour and emotional stability I'm submitting a a parental application for EHCP.

I'm very sorry for length of post and sarcastic tone. I would like to reassure you all I don't use this tone with the school (that's not why I have problems) but in a personal level I'm finding I need to use this tone and keep a sense of humour about the situation to maintain my sanity.

I don't blame you being cynical. It's a good position for someone in your situation

Good for you! I am glad you gave got the EHCP application underway. I don't expect it will be smooth sailing so well done gathering all your evidence.

So they sent me the requested information today.

Did they fuck

They sent me the copy of the report that's still on the portal - not the one I clearly requested which has his targets alongside his achievements and his final target for year 11. They also sent me his reading and spelling test scores - as standardised scores rather than age scores which I can't do anything with because I don't know what is expected!

So I emailed back thanking them for the report, that it wasn't the one I requested and stating clearly again exactly which report I needed. I also asked them to translate his reading and spelling standardised scores into age for me as I wasn't sent the information to be able to do this myself!

It's rediculous!

Even my dad said tonight - well you know you won't get it because it's proves what you've been saying all along and they won't admit they are wrong!

I'm not sure if anyone is still following this but I'll update anyway! Helps me keep a record that is the madness of the situation.

Still had no reply to my direct questions re literacy score and target or has the data capture I asked for that they removed.

Had another meeting to update the shitty document that is the IPA. It's not changed. Nor will it! They are waiting on the OT report - the self referral I did and won't acknowledge the other reports which informed all previous IPAs. (Because then they'd actually need to support DS!)

I was very proud of myself in meeting. I was quite straight and informed them that I was applying for EHCP as they couldn't meet his needs and precious meeting showed the wouldn't follow their own local offer.

I've not heard from head of Sen at la but it's obvious she has spoken to them. They even said some things to me that were direct quotes from me of things they should be doing - eg recognising I know DS better than them.

There was the obvious ignoring of discussing academic acheivement. They used the progress word a lot! Then they produced his Linus tests which show he's in average range. We know that! He's an intelligent boy - but just because he can read accurately ay speed doesn't mean he can infer from text and write about what he's written to an expected standard.

Usual talk of all the training they've had. TBF to head of SEN she is essentially lovely but I feel she's been given a role too big for one person. She is often in meetings that means she can't provide information to students - my DS - re cover teachers etc.

Usual stuff about how happy he is in school. They probably see him for 20 minutes a day - hour tops. I know from incidents in class he's not happy all day. Repeats again of it being normal to meltdown after school - a lot of their ASD students do etc etc.
Total ignorance that meltdowns are as a result of increased anxiety and surprised anger therefore his needs haven't been met - or his anxiety wouldn't have increased. (I'm still keeping my job role under wraps from them!)

Did have one quite amusing moment when discussing sensory needs and head of Sen looked at me in all seriousness and said "they are going to add sensory needs as part of ASD criteria for dx"

Really going to? Well it was already part of the diagnostic process DS went through as he was dx under DSM V. They really do like to look like they have supreme knowledge - bless!

At one point I bit my tongue when Sen lady said she'd suggested DS invites his girlfriend around and cooks her dinner. He is 11yo FFS. Why are they suggesting he arranges a date? Worse still - they have no idea of the actual relationship and the way me and the girls mum are monitoring it. Ds and this girl are good friends - she's brilliant with him. However when he was upset once and she hugged him DS freaked and ran off. He cannot handle anything more than a chat on his terms. Encouraging a relationship is just way beyond his capabilities and a recipe for disaster.

They have agreed to do an EP assessment in summer term. They ignored my request for one last October and have only agreed because the old one is out of date - and I'm sure it won't look good for them once la start looking into DS needs and the support needed against the lack of support provided.

They also had a dig about DS hearing things I've said about school - they have a point TBH but seem to forget anything he's heard is me repeating things he said to me and me repeating things the school have said to me. If it's made him feel negatively about school they need to realise that reflects on them not me. Although I will be taking any calls outside of the house in future. I didn't tell them what he heard was me repeating the last meeting to PP, LA and ipsea!

They also mentioned moving his ELSA from outside of school hours to during times he doesn't take part in PE (he's lost his confidence in this again). That's how I know as well la have spoken to them because I raised it as a DDA issue with LA. So now the only set 1 hour a week support he had has become an ad hoc whatever amount of support .

Of course though he can't have support at any other time as they are an inclusive school and so he must attend all lessons. (Except PE of course!) why to people Mis understand or think we as parents don't understand inclusion?

I've had the minutes of the meeting. Very much as expected - kidding feels that....
It's very cleverly written to look like my personal feelings rather than me advocating on behalf of DS with information he provides me. I think they forget I'm not at the school so anything I know comes from him.

I've added my notes to minutes and will be returning in due course.

It's a fucking draining process but my DS needs me to be his rock and so I'll carry on.

I may be wrong but I think that the shift of focus to 'outcomes' rather than 'needs' in the EHCP has led to an acceptance of 'the way things are' when needs are left unmet and it is expected that parents of DC with SEN have to adjust to a new reality.

At DS2's tribunal hearing in December I was shocked by the attitude of the judge which seemed to be that I just had to accept that he had ASD and so reduce my expectations of what was possible. So he is academically very able but can only only follow adult directions for 5 minutes on a good day (i.e. if he feels like it). But lots of autistic DC have problems with attention so, shrug, it is what it is. Provision is therefore a waste of time and money.

I, apparently, need to focus on other outcomes to measure success - like DS2 being invited to his first party.

Except that DS2 has been invited to lots of parties - he is popular and very biddable and at 9 is viewed with affectionate bemusement by classmates and we have always invited the whole class or all the boys to his party to maximise return invitations. This is not a need. His popularity is not a result of anything the school have done.

otoh he really does have problems with attention and concentration. This is a need. But it is also 'normal' or par for the course and so the school are not expected to reduce need.

The panel also knew that the school had scored him at level 4c and talked about his progress despite the fact that they had in front of them an example of his work where his total descriptive writing on the stone-age was reduced to one part-sentence - 'A lot of stones'. To paraphrase the judge - he's autistic and so doesn't work but if he did he would score above average. Provision won't change that but will just make him feel different and wouldn't be fair to NT kids and we must remember that this is a m/s school and is limited what it can do. Oh, and the school was described in the Decision as 'a model of inclusion'.

Now, meltdowns after school are 'normal' rather than indicative of unmet need. So schools have gone from absolute disbelief (I videoed DS1 and was reported to SS as a consequence) to saying it is to be expected.

Common difficulty -> intervention required
Normal/inclusive -> nothing can be done/embrace difference

They act/fail to act in ways that cause real problems for a long time and, after years of pointless banging your head against a brick wall, you feel seriously pissed off and so then they focus on the fact that you are pissed off and play the victim and pretend that your feelings are the problem.

Tribunal seems to have increased the confidence of DS2's school to flout the law. Despite Ruling they remain absolutely unwilling to provide any support, not even access to class TA because she only works part time, in all lessons during the afternoon including science, geography, history etc - every lesson apart from english and maths. They have even put it in writing which is very handy for forthcoming JR. Maybe that way provision will actually be delivered before DS2 leaves primary!

Is you DS at a maintained school or an academy/free school? If it's maintained, I suggest you ask for copies of his school records under these regulations and they must produce them within 15 school days. If it's an academy or free school you need to do a subject access request under the Data Protection Act, but they have 40 days to reply.

I sent my SAR this morning! Good timing with that post gruntled. (it's an academy)

keep I would expect for a cognitively able child the outcomes should be academic acheivement. The outcome for my DS will be to meet his progress 8 targets? The fact he isn't on course to shows unmet need?
Surely they can't just say he's no longer expected to meet his targets based on previous attainment because we've changed to EHCP.

Perhaps I should put an outcome that DS won't meltdown after school due to incidents in school that have raised his anxiety?!

The school has Ofsted tomorrow!

There is a greater focus on support that enables those with SEN to succeed in their education and make a successful transition to adulthood

Why is it always academies that are so spectacularly crap? It ought to be in their interests to put proper support in place to raise levels of achievement generally.

Can you send a few choice comments to Ofsted?

They don't deal with individual complaints. (Sadly!)

I guess it's because academy's are not answerable to the LA? That's probably why the government are pushing for schools to become academy's.

I think the real reason is that they are about money and that there is a political agenda that the government is desperate for academies to be seen to succeed. Therefore ideally they would like to push out all these inconvenient children with learning difficulties who might mess up their league table results.

You might have a ooint! DS current placement weren't exactly in a hurry to disused me from doing EHCP and were suggesting I look at schools ASAP when I said I intend to move him!

Until the judge suggested otherwise, I had always assumed that a 5 minute attention span would negatively impact on a cognitively able child achieving academic 'success'.

However, the school's subjective assessment of progress only expects 'average' progress - anything between the 25th and the 75th percentile is OK, even for DC on the 99th percentile. I had to get the LA to do specific WIAT assessment to calculate discrepancy between achievement and ability to get them to admit negative impact.

As far as the judge was concerned he was making good progress according to subjective assessments and only requiring average overall progress. Lack of progress in relation to specific targets doesn't mean 'unmet need' apparently, it means 'autistic'.

I had submitted evidence of IEP targets from 2012 to date wrt attention and concentration targets remaining unmet despite increasing intervention. My argument was that all intervention had so far failed and that the only thing left was 1:1. The judge disagreed. She claimed that the targets had not been met because he was autistic and lots of autistic DC have problems with attention.

Therefore he was not given 1:1 (he will always be autistic and so have problems with attention but 1:1 creates dependency - disadvantages therefore outweigh potential advantages) but a new in-between category of 'dedicated' LSA support was invented. This is not necessarily a separate person and so in reality was just 'priority' access to the class TA. Even so, the school refuse to employ a class TA in the afternoons and so there is only one adult (the CT) in the classroom.

For JR purposes I am glad the school are such arrogant bastards as if they did employ a class TA throughout the day they could easily defend themselves by insisting that he had 'priority' access but just did not want support because it made him look different.

Not only academies are crap - the HT was furious that we had to drop part 4 of the appeal because no other state school would say yes. This was advised by no less than Jane McDonald (ex head of IPSEA now a tribunal judge) at telephone hearing as we had no alternative placement - this was despite the fact that she knew that the HT of the parental placement state school in the next village would not let parents even visit to assess potential suitability prior to hearing appealing part 4. Beggars belief.

I think the advantage I may have - or at least what I'm aiming to point out - is that DS has regressed at home due to the pressure of school day. Yes, it maybe due to autism but it's affecting outcomes because the life skills he learns at home just can't happen anymore.
Therefore as outcome is to learn independence skills, independent learning and attend college and university he needs to be I a. Fit state to learn the skills after school and also needs to meet his grades to get into college.

I'm sure they'll fight it but I've found lots of SENDCOP that actually backs up my argument in what they are trying to achieve!

Oh what a surprise - IPA document is by Hampshire!

Do you have experience of them then biscuit?!

Not personally, but I've heard lots of parents talk about them at various SEN workshops, etc!

Oh great! They clearly have a reputation for being spectacularly shit!