Advice needed re checking proposed statement of SEN please

[rosienjim]

We received a proposed statement of SEN for our little boy (ASD, aged 4) last week and would welcome any advice re checking it through and making amendments. He is due to start school in September and currently gets full-time one-to-one support at pre-school (the LA funds 1.5 hours per session, and the pre-school funds the rest). The proposed statement states that he should receive 'up to 15 hours of additional support a week', which is rather lower than we were expecting - and seems a bit meaningless if worded as 'up to'. This is the first time I have posted on here, so I will stop at this point in case I'm not doing it right!

hello, welcome and like the name! I would try and contact these people about the wording:-

www.ipsea.org.uk

You're right - bad bad meaningless wording! This could mean one hour a week.

I would treat this as a bargaining stage. Make a higher offer! Refuse to accept it as it is and ask for full time (probably 32 hours), explaining what would happen without support, using evidence from any professionals involved to back up why full time is needed. You won't get it, but they may up the amount. When you do this, also state in writing that the final amount of hours on the Statement should not read 'up to' but be an exact amount. They have a legal duty to specify unless there are exceptional circumstances, which yours isn't, so they have to say exactly how much support he will get. Also ask for it to be specified that this is individual support, because, in a worst case scenario, the school could give him shared support with 5 other children for one hour a week with the current wording.

Good luck!

"Up to" is certainly not at all acceptable. I would decline their "kind" offer forthwith as givemesleep also has written.

Support should be properly quantified and specific. What you've had is not quantified; support needs to be quantified by law.

You need to make sure that both Parts 2 and 3 are completely okay; you need to talk to either IPSEA (they are very good) or perhaps SOS;SEN for further advice. Read Parts 2 and 3 to them verbatim and they will tell you what it should actually say.

Good luck!!

Specify and quantify and ensure nothing about speech, language or ocmmunication comes under 'non educational needs' which is something they do regularly to absolve themselves of blame/responsibility when you get no support with communication.

It's also illegal to do so in any case (check out IPSEA website and 'Lancashire Judgement' for reasons why.)

I'm a SALT btw.

Thanks so much for your advice. Will try to get hold of phone number and talk to IPSEA on Monday. The more I look through the proposed statement, the more I seem to find fault with. Much of what is written seems very unspecific to me, particuarly in the 'Provision' section eg 'a programme of activities designed to develop his abilities to integrate and socialise more appropriately with other children'; 'opportunities and activities to...'; 'continued support to...'. Should it not specify how often these things should be happening? This occurs only once in the entire statement: 'The SLT will need to re-assess DS's exact need for SLT 3 times a year'. Or am I just expecting too much and these things will be quantified on his IEPs?

You posted as I did.
No, you're quite right,it's all crap vague stuff that meeds nowt.
Even the SALT stuff is shite.

What they have written means she only needs to spend oooohh...... 3 seconds deciding whether or not to continue seeing him.

Press for something like
SALT will formally assess (using standardised assessments and circulate a written report indicating need (or otherwise) for SALT provision to continue.

That is what 'specify and quantify' needs.

It's a tall order and SALTs have too many peopel on caseloads anyway, but that is not your problem,it's theirs.

Oh, sorry, also meant to ask... We originally made our primary school application through the 'normal channels' as Stat Ass had only just started at that stage, and we applied for a place at our local mainstream primary which, at the time we thought was the best option for DS. We now want him placed at a different school with an SRP. Am I right in saying that if he gets a place in an SRP, he will automatically get full-time support, and will the fact that he has currently been allocated just 'up to 15 hours' support a week lessen our chances of him getting a place in the SRP? Sorry for all these questions!

Not sure about that one, but someone else will know no doubt.

Thanks again for all of your advice. Moondog - your comments regarding SALT provision have really made me realise just how vague much of the proposed statement actually is. Have done two pages of comments proposing amendments so far, but too tired to continue tonight! Think I'd be better off just re-writing the whole thing! Hope they won't be offended by my exhaustive list of amendments!

Offended???
No they won't be, but if they are, so bloody what?
It is your right and your duty to get this watertight, because they sure as hell own't.
Be warned. Trust nobody.
I am being deadly serious.

(My friend did a further 12 draughts of a proposed statement before she was happy with it.I myself did at least 4 for my own child, but as I had practically written everything that was to go on it in the first place, that wasn't too bad.)

Again, trust nobody.

Don't propose amendments, just make them.
Ask for an electronic copy and just change it.Then send it back but don't highlight the changes made.Make them work a bit and find them!

Electronic thing is a good way to go. My son's statementing officer now sends me his this way. But I would use the Microsoft word 'track changes' thing in 'options', which then highlights changes in red, as otherwise they may miss them if they go through your changes manually to prevent you being sneaky and tweaking things that they miss!

If they miss your changes, all the better as you may land yourself a fab deal!
Landmark Lancashire Judgement (in which decided that Education Authorities were after all responsible for communication issues) was argues against by Lancashire Council as they claimed someone on their 'side' had made a clerical error in putting SALT under Part 3.

They lost thoguh.

No, that's what I mean - a lot of places now won't just merge the parental changes if done on computer - they'll enter each one manually, so may miss a change if changes aren't highlighted.

Oh, good point then Giveme.
Mind you,I would be checking every amended draught with a fine toothcomb anyway, so it wouldn't happen to me.

Thanks again for all of your advice. I tried 4 different helplines today: IPSEA, SOS SEN, NAS, and Parent Partnership - had to leave messages on three of them, and IPSEA automated message advised to keep trying... In the mean time, here I sit, adding to my exhaustive list of amendments as best I can...

It's hard work.
Get down to parent Partnership for face to face meeting asap.Ours are great but reember they can never be truly impartial as funded by the education Authority, the very people you are up against.

IOPSEA are a bugger to get hold of too, but website good.

Thanks Moondog - but haven't heard back from Parent Partnership yet. Couldn't find info on IPSEA's website re checking proposed statements, but maybe thats just me?! Have only heard back from SOS SEN, who phoned today and agree its too vague, but am now waiting for another colleague to phone me. We are due to be going away from Thursday to Sunday, and our 15-day deadline is next Wednesday. Might phone SENAT tomorrow to explain the situation... Not sure if there is any flexibility on that timescale?

I'd be hassling PP.
Time of the essense here.
Not sure about extenuating circumstances.
Phnoe and check.
Don't let it drift.