Does the SENCO have to attend IEP Review?

[KOKOagainandagain]

Ongoing saga with DS2's school.

Following issue of an amended Statement in January, short-term targets and a Provision Map were produced 2-3 months later. There was no TA in class to 'provide dedicated support' 'in all written lessons' during each afternoon (specified). She was in the classroom on a Monday afternoon during 2 hours of PE (not specified) and provided 5 hours support in the playground but only at lunchtime (not specified or quantified) or more likely .

At the meeting, the SENCO agreed to take out the five hours playground support but could not guarantee DS2 would get support in the afternoon because 'he would need to have full time 1:1 LSA to get support in the afternoon' and it was 'up to the head'.

After much to-ing and fro-ing a new Provision Map was produced. The 5 hours playground support had been deleted but this did not translate to 5 hours support in class in the afternoons as the new Provision Map 'used' up most of those hours with non-specified provision (such as 15 minutes touch typing per day) and so 'only had enough left' to provide support for some of Tuesday and Wednesday but not Thursday and Friday.

The timetable constantly changes but this is when subjects such as science, geography, history etc are taught and the Judge ordered an insertion to DS2's Statement that he needs "a highly structured approach with individual support for all written tasks whether literacy, maths, [taught in the morning with class TA] science or topic [taught in the afternoon with no class TA]". The level of support, pre and post Tribunal, and Judge's ruling, remains the same despite the Ruling that this was inadequate (verbally agreed by SENCO at Hearing) and the fact that support is specified in the Statement.

I have been advised to proceed to JR for non-delivery of provision. Refusing to employ staff to provide support is also failure to make reasonable adjustment and so is Disability Discrimination.

The head sent the revised Provision Map and in his covering email said that he was taking over the management of DS2's provision and that all communication in future would be with him. He did not respond to an email asking why he thought that this was in DS2's best interests until forced to do so and still gives no reasons - just says that it is his 'professional judgement'.

During this time, not only did the head not respond to emails but did not communicate with us directly about meetings with SALT and OT held at the school (informed and invited by LA) and made no attempt to arrange IEP review and had to be prompted.

So, basically, provision is not being delivered as specified and the school are so sick of the parent's commenting on this that all verbal and written communication with the SENCO has been banned. I suspect that this is punishment for not accepting the fact that the head still refused to employ at TA or dedicated LSA in the afternoons following the issuing of an amended statement and had made this abundantly clear. But I also expect that the SENCO will claim that she felt 'threatened'. We had a surreal conversation where she kept repeating that she 'felt' very strongly that I did want DS2 to have 5 hours support at lunchtime (rather than support in the classroom) and believed that I would complain if he did not receive it. In the end I said 'you're not listening to me'. Was this rude or inappropriate? She also 'felt very strongly' about things when the tribunal panel disputed her claims and she had no evidence to back them up.

We are now due an IEP review. I am genuinely intimated by this man even if I try to pretend not to be I find his hatred and hostility shocking and it feels very personal. In the one meeting (other than when DS2 first joined the school) I had with him he was very aggressive - declaring the meeting over if disagreed with, telling me 'to go away and think very hard' about whether DS2 should continue to attend that school, comparing us negatively to other parents with whom all staff have a fantastic relationship, contemptuously 'explaining' to the LA rep "she means..." whilst I am sat there and fully able to speak for myself etc. He treats me as if I am a naughty, and silly, school-girl.

Meetings with the SENCO/CT were already bad enough that the LA/SENDIASS have attended previous meetings as the school just ignore all comments made by parents otherwise. The LA post has been discontinued due to budget cuts and now SENDIASS have said that can't mediate anymore but I can phone the helpline and email them. Gee, thanks.

I don't want to have the meeting with the head there, especially with no external mediator, preferably from the LA. But then I fear they will use this to claim that I don't care about my son's 'progress' and that this proves that I know really that he has 'no needs' and am just exaggerating.

I am so tired of all this - on top of DS1 being out of school and JR proceedings for him. The thought of being bullied by DS2's head makes me want to take to my bed with a bottle of Pinot.

What, if anything, can I do? The SENCOP seems to assume that there will be one SENCO and that they are fully responsible for all DC with SEN. But I can't find anything that explicitly says this. By the way, DS2 is the only child in the school with a Statement.

Please let there be someone who can help - I'm pretty desperate and feel I am going to give up/crack up/say something inappropriate/behave unreasonably or perhaps all four

I originally named another school in Part 4. A m/s primary in the neighbouring village with an excellent reputation for SEN. This made the head of that school very angry and stressed and shouty and, apparently, or so he told me, the LA had 'promised' him that no more SEN DC would be admitted to the school and so would not let us visit. He said 'no' and the LA accepted that admitting DS2 would be detrimental to DC already at the school.

The tribunal was initially for parts 2, 3 and 4 but I had to have an early case conference with a Judge (ex head of IPSEA) because the refusal to even allow parents to visit their chosen alternative school, meant that effectively I had no alternative school and was advised to withdraw the appeal of the part. I had already asked the LA to intervene but they said it was up to the head whether or not he let us visit.

We live in a rural area. The village catchment m/s was forced to admit him. There is no other school that is close enough (the chosen alternative was a 15 minute drive) without driving to the next largest town about 7 miles away (through commuter traffic).

It seems to be par for the course that schools say 'no' to DC with a statement and so in reality the LA choose which school DC will attend - which they justify by saying that the local offer of all schools is the same.

blae - I have noticed a definite correlation between the sex of the speaker and the likelihood of the listener believing or accepting what is said when the other members of the meeting are women but the head has some extra macho shit going on. He seems to think he has to protect "his staff" (specifically the SENCO, CT and TA - all women) against mean and nasty 'parents'. He does seem to reserve his 'death stare' for me though and I find this rather disconcerting. I even looked over my shoulder to see if I could spot the object of contempt before I realised it was aimed at little ol' me!

Your story is painful to read. School is not going to have a 'lightbulb' moment, are they?

A family worker from the NAS local support service is now going to contact me. I am also awaiting a call back from SOS!SEN.

When we relocated to these parts and all potential schools had to be sent the statement and so, automatically it seemed, said 'no' I began to wish that DS2 did not have a statement so that I would have some choice over which school he attended. I need permission but that permission is denied and, in practice, the LA get to decide which school he attends. The opposite of what was intended.

I would never have placed him in a school which only has TA support in the mornings - because he is autistic all day, every day for ffs not just in the mornings and one afternoon a week - why is that simple fact so hard to grasp? .

I want to move. I don't want DS2 to be in his current school and I dread him going to the local academy which says on its' website that it will deliver provision in an EHCP - if their own teaching staff think it is necessary and if they can afford it. I have heard reports from other parents about bullying and SEN and their bad reputation for supporting DC with an ASD.

Does anyone know what grammar schools in Lincolnshire are like for ASD? Or what the LA is like? (surely it can't be any worse?)