Could I have your experiences of getting part time home ed programmes funded by the LA?

[sphil]

Dh and I are beginning to think that the only way to get the school to take our p/t ABA programme seriously, and to safeguard that programme into the future, is to persuade the LA to fund it. I really have no idea whether we'll be able to do this - we have been funding this arrangement ourselves since Sept., first with the special school and since Feb with the m/s school. We are lucky in that we COULD afford to go on doing it - but not for ever. We had hoped that the m/s school would be prepared to take on the programme - but that isn't going to happen, despite my best efforts.

What would really help is to gather some stories from those of you who've fought for this kind of funding - and won, or lost. I don't know of anyone who does this kind of thing here - and that's part of the problem. It's just not known that these things happen, and can work - so we are regarded with enormous suspicion at worst and as pushy parents at best.

In addition, does anyone know if there's anywhere I can get figures about how many children across the UK are funded for ABA programmes?

Obviously I wouldn't use any personal info in my argument - just quote cases in general. Is this OK to ask? If anyone doesn't want to put info on here you could ask me to CAT you.

Thanks in advance

I know it's not a huge number of people, but if you see anyone around MN who you know has experience of this, could you direct them to this thread please?

Sphil have you looked on ABA UK? There are quite few on their who are currently fighting or have won or lost their battles.

Also have you talked to IPSEA? They were very helpful when I had similar questions. Unfortunately my borough seems to be very anti ABA and only seems to fund after lengthy legal battles which I think is the case in a lot of areas.

Thanks Stary - will look. I didn't think of IPSEA even though I used them when DS2 was statemented [daft emoticon]

Bumping for morning people!

Sphil, both me and pipinjo can help as we both have funded ABA/school programs. I have only 2/3 of it funded, but my god that has helped as previously we had remortgaged the house to pay! Here is how I did it:

1. I got my DS assesseed for a statement and told them very early on that a) he has made huge, quantifiable progress under ABA which cannot be demonstrated under TEACCH or other methods and b) that I had taken informal legal advice on the matter.
2. Once he got the go-ahead to be assessed for a statement, I talked at length with the appointed Ed Pscyh about well ABA had worked for him. I talked on the phone, I sent her 5 page papers, I sent her videos. Basically, I bombarded her but kept it very friendly and polite.
3. When it came to my submission for the statement assessment, I made my submission very clear that I wanted part time ABA and p/t inclusion in mainstream, with an ABA trained shadow. BUT, and it's a big BUT, I made it clear that my ultimate aim was to get DS into full-time school (with a shadow) and to gradually phase out Home ABA and phase in school. That was the bit they liked, as it's also their agenda.
4. So in my statement it now says "phased integration into mainstream school, accompanied, according to progress made."
5. As well as point 4) I think the thing that swung it for me was that I had also tried (and paid through the nose for ) a special autistic pre-school which used the TEACCH method. Yet I had loads of proof, including school reports, that he had made little or no progress under TEACCH. Yet when the Ed Psych visited and viewed ABA sessions, she could see for herself the progress he had made under ABA. It therefore became difficult for them to make an argument for any other school, as basically they all use TEACCH, and not ABA. Once I had established that only ABA can get through to him, and once the Ed Psych is on your side, it's difficult for them to shove the kid in any old school.

That is all a lot of info, but let me know if you'd prefer to chat on phone?

Sphil ,get on the ABA Yahoo chatboard too as loads of useful advice.

As a salt training to be ABA consultant (and beginning to practie it in the workplace) I can tell you that the powers that be are taking ABA very seriously indeed.They know that the demand is not goingto go away as there are reams and reams of research demonstrating its efficacy,which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the half arsed mish-mash that goes for SN teaching in most schools in UK.
They would probably call it 'eclectic'

Ha!!!

We have just been allocated a SALT who is going to work with the ABA program in his DS1's nursery. Also, what normally happens when a parent home educates for reasons unrelated to SN ? It must be saving the taxpayer money (?)

Hi sphil, the problem with fighting for funding (which, as you know, usually means appealing to SENDIST) is that it may ruin your relationship with the school (esp. if the LEA uses the head teacher or SENCO of the school as their witness at the hearing). You will need to demonstrate that the current provision is inappropriate, and that involves criticising the school unfortunately. A lot of people have advised me to "fight with the LEA, but keep the school on your side" - easier said than done! The school will also have a lot of influence on whether/how long the ABA programme continues to run (via the annual review).

Have you put in a Freedom of Information Act request to your LA to find out if they have funded ABA in the past? I'd advise you to do that, it brought up some rather interesting information for us!

Thanks so much everyone. I'll do the research you've suggested and then contact those of you who've offered individually if we need more help

Our situation is, perhaps, slightly unusual in that DS2 is already statemented. He had his annual review in November, which is when it was decided that he should change from the special school to the m/s school next door. We amended the statement to reflect this but have STILL not had it back - our LA has a huge back log. Normally I'd have been in the phone hassling, but tbh there are so many issues still to sort out with the new school that the fact he doesn't have a current statement might suit us, in an odd sort of way!

Basically the LA agreed at the Review that DS2 sould do p/t school, p/t home ABA programme(funded by us). The original idea was that the school would liaise closely with us so that they could eventually take on the programme and DS2 could then go f/t. If that sounds naive, we do Growing Minds rather than 'straight' ABA which I feel is easier for non-specialists to deliver. All it would need on the school's part is a willngness to send someone home to observe and the possibility of his 1:1 also working on the programme at home. All I want is for them to be aware of the methodology and use it to help him learn. I'm not expecting them to reproduce the home programme at school. However, stupidly, I didn't get this last bit in writing at the review.

As Moondog says 'ha!' Having seemed very open to the idea at first, the school are now less keen. They give me an awful lot of time and DS2 has made significant progress socially since starting there - but they seem to have become very resistant to any notion of learning what we do at home. We feel that the only way to get them to take the programme seriously and safeguard its future is to apply for funding.

But I don't know if we've got a hope, given that we're already doing AND funding it.

And yes, I really want to stay on the right side of the school. I don't think they mind DS2 going p/t at all - what they would mind is having to treat the situation like a dual placement, which is what we want.
Sorry - long!

It is great that they don't mind him going p/t, and quite unusual and forward-thinking as well!

Is it possible that the school have become more resistant as a result of having been "leaned on" by the LEA, who fear that they will need to pick up the tab if they formalise the arrangement? Is is possible too that the LEA haven't finalised the statement as they are not sure about the legal implications?

It is unlawful to specify in the statement that part of the provision is to be made by the parents. Any provision specified in Part 3 MUST be funded by the LEA. They can state (in Part 4, I think) that the parents have made "suitable arrangements" (e.g. by home educating or self-funding a placement at an independent school - not sure if that applies to part-time arrangements as well). Parents will not be treated as having made "suitable arrangements" if the arrangements do not include a realistic possibility of funding those arrangements for a reasonable period of time (see 8:97 Code of Practice). This might be a problem in your case?

Ah, I didn't know that Homsa. That may well be the reason why the statement is delayed - though I think the LA are under the impression that the home programme is temporary and will gradually give way to f/t school. Which is what we agreed too at the time of review when we thought the school would be more prepared to use ABA methods. It's only now, when we're realising that's probably not going to happen, that we want the home programme established on a permanent basis. And it sounds as if, if we want that, we'll have to get it funded?

But it was only agreed as a temporary arrangement. In fact, the LA sent us a letter after the meeting summarising what had been agreed, ie DS2 to attend school 5 mornings a week with the afternoons spent on his home programme. They also wrote 'with a view to him attending full time from the beginning of the summer term in preparation for Year 1'. I rang and said we didn't want to put a time scale on his f/t attendance because it depended on how he progressed and they wrote back agreeing that this could be decided between us and the school. BUT the letters haven't ever mentioned ABA specifically - they just talk about 'the home programme'. This is our fault - we deliberately didn't hammer the fact it's an ABA programme, partly because we're not doing pure ABA and partly because we've learnt from experience it puts people off. Remember, this was at a time when I wasn't even considering going for a funded programme - I just naively thought I could somehow wheedle ABA into the school through a combination of charm and stealth .

So where do you think that puts us?

Have not read this thread thoroughly but suggest you get in touch with PEACh for stats on funding. We got full funding for our program for 4 years but that started 10 years ago!! Homsa is right about once needs are agreed, LAs must fund fully and that is why they don't like compromise. But you must get draft statement or you cannot do anything. Get advice from NAS helpline, they recently got extra funding and have more help from Clifford Chance solicitors. Also TreeHouse campaigns team may be able to advise. I have known MANY people get funding over the years but I think it has slowed down and become more difficult. Partly because LAs are on to it and are much more careful but also because they have developed SO MUCH more provision since our day and include ABA or "behavioural approach". They also know what to promise even if they don't deliver.

We've just had help from NAS helpline and Clifford Chance for our tribunal hearing. It was a bit hit and miss tbh - some people I spoke to were very experienced and clued up about SEN law, others were barking up some wrong trees! You definitely need to do your own research as well (CAT me if you want any of my notes). I can't fault them for effort though - our pro bono solicitor especially put in a huge amount of time and effort. Still, if you can afford it, an experienced solicitor specialising in education law would be a safer bet.

I know there is case law where an LEA agreed to part-fund an ABA programme, and issued a statement saying "X will receive 40 hours of ABA, 20 of which will be funded by the LEA" or something like that. The parents successfully challenged this and got the full 40 hours funded. So if you can "trick" your LEA into writing something like that, you'd have won already! But like Davros said, they're much more clued up these days...

I'd say you seem to have a strong case as you've got the LEA's agreement in writing that your DS needs the home programme atm. What other provision do they offer in your LEA? Do they have integrated resources (i.e. specialist autistic units attached to ms schools) for your DS's age group? (this may be important as you've basically proven already that a special school is unsuitable, and you're saying that ms with a bit of specialist input is not enough)

Homsa - as far as I know the only integrated resources they have in the county are much too far away for us to access. However, another possible complication is that the primary part of the special school next door is relocating to the m/s in Sept 2009. They will become part of the m/s school, under one Head, not co-located. So I don't know whether it will be seen as a unit. It's not autistic specific though - SLD/PMLD with a very very few pupils with MLD. My worry is that the LEA may try to stall us until then - maybe by issuing a statement with a time-scale on it - and then argue that DS2 has the best of both worlds: 1:1, NT peers AND specialist teachers/facilities on-site.

Electra - hi! I looked at the letters we've received so far from the LA and they describe it as a 'Growing Minds' programme, not ABA, unfortunately. The LA have been very supportive so far - I think it helps that both DH and I are in education - how do you think I should approach finding out whether they'll be receptive?

We don't work with a provider - Growing Minds supervise our programme from the States. I run the programme and I think that may be part of the problem - the school just aren't used to parents being so involved. I do work well with the school though!

All DS2's reports, and his first statement, were written over a year ago, when we lived in another county and before we started the home programme. So none of them are really relevant any more. Would it be better to ask the County EP to reassess DS2 in both home and school settings, do you think, or should we get someone independent?

Really glad to hear DD is doing well - DS2 is also benefiting hugely from being with NT peers. He ran across the playground to find his friend yesterday and then held his cheek out for her to kiss .

Just bumping this one more time. Went in for weekly meeting at school today and watched DS2 calmly using the hand-dryer with three other children. They've got him wearing headphones and he ran across the playground to greet his special friend yesterday (he's never taken any notice of peers before, except DS1). So many positives - it could be perfect if only they'd just open themselves to considering some ABA/VB techniques.

I don't know what kind of distance would be considered too far - I get the impression an hour each way is considered acceptable

It doesn't sound like you should worry too much about the special/ms scenario you've described - Sept 2009 is still a long way away, and your DS needs intensive early intervention NOW! You could argue that if "increasing levels of ms integration in line with DS's progress" or something like that is written into his statement, which will be reviewed at least annually, then there should be no need to specify a timescale?

I know exactly what you mean about schools not being used to parents being so involved...! Nobody can reasonably expect a ms school to be able to cater for ALL children with ASD, so it's not a criticism of the school if you feel you need to play a major role in your DS's education! Also the effectiveness of the home programme will be hugely reduced if skills learnt at home are not systematically generalised into the school, and vice versa. (although the mere fact that you have weekly meetings at school is enough to make me green with )

Sounds like your DS is really thriving at the school - you must be so pleased you've made the decision to move him there!

Re asking for an EP re-assessment - you can be lucky and get a very pro-ABA report (unlikely), or you might be told "off the record" that the EP is not "allowed" to even mention (let alone recommend) ABA in the report. I'd steer clear of it tbh. Get an independent EP if you need to go to tribunal - I can recommend David Urani, but he's very expensive. They're often booked up for months in advance btw.

Are you sure they are not using "behavioural techniques" of some sort at school?? Even if it isn't formal ABA I doubt very much if they could have made those steps you mention without behavioural techniques. If you angle it all towards the ABA program being in place so your DS can gradually and then fully integrate into m/s then maybe they will fund, expecting you to completley m/s him at some point, and I'm sure that's what you'd want ideally. But if it doesn't happen you could have some funded ABA in place and they can then struggle to bring it to a close. Mind you, when that day comes you may be prepared to finish formal ABA?? Our LEA wrote us a letter stating that they were going to stop funding our ABA prog but I just ignored it!! It went away until we applied for funding at ABA school.

Well it's funny you should say that Davros. I was just talking to DH about how the school works on behavioural principles. They have a whole range of different rewards for achievement, progress and behaviour - I know most schools do, but they really have a huge number. They got him to wear the headphones because he has to wear them to listen to Cbeebies clips on the computer (so the noise doesn't disturb the class). As soon as he realised he couldn't do one without the other, he started accepting them. So they used pairing (but the 1:1 had no idea what I was talking about when I told her that's what it was!). The hand dryer was a case of very low key gradual exposure. They're good at fading prompts too. I keep trying to tell them that the way we work is very similar to the way they work, but I don't think they believe me!

I think the idea that both you and Homsa suggest, of a p/t home programme which gradually moves into f/t school depending on DS2's progress, is what we've always envisaged (and what the LEA have agreed to, though we haven't yet got it in writing).