Help with statment stuff again.

[staryeyed]

WE have gone through the statementing process so far we have rejected the 1st proposed statement and had a meeting with the case worker with the draft of the statement with my amendments. Our school choice was agreed to but they wanted to remove all references to PECS trained people working with Ds. I was told that the case worker had spoken to the head mistress who had confirmed all staff are PECS trained so it was irrelevant anyway. I agreed to contact the school myself and if the staff were all properly PECS trained to have it removed from statement. However it seems although they have a PECS coordinator they are given in house training only and I am currently trying to find out from the school if the coordinator is trained to train because it sounds as if the school is not using it correctly - I spoke to a class teacher who said they use it for snack time[sigh]. I have left several messages since last Friday with headmistress who has not got back to me I keep being told she is busy.

I had also requested that the Occupational therapist write more specific input recommendations but they have also come back quite vague. The SALT has quantified input but says " up to" which I requested they removed. I will contact the OT but I am hitting a brick wall in terms of getting the statement to be specific and quantitative. The professionals writing the report say they are not responsible for quantifying input and the LEA say that they can only include what the professional have written.

So my questions are :

1. Even though DS is going to a special school can I insist that staff are properly PECS trained? (the case worker said that its not for the LEA to dictate how the school spend their budget or train their staff).

2. is there anything I can quote at OT to get them to write more specific recommendations?

Thanks Starlight. I feel so worn down by it all. Ive got the DLA tribunal next month. Next will be the transport issue, which we didnt get for DS nursery. 2 non sleeping children.....blah blah blah.

I so feel for you Stary.Starlight is right-ignore all 'the panel has decided' crap. You would not believe what is possible if yuo just keep on standing your ground. A few hundred quid on PECS 2 day training is a hell of a lot less to pay than a tribunal (even if they 'win')

Don't sign anything if you are not happy.
Get onto IPSEA and SEN:SOS.
Contact Pyramid for advice on how exactly to word the PECS bit.

Hang in there-it will be worth it.

so have received finalised statement. Not as bad as I originally thought.We did get the school of our choice and nearly all of my proposed changes and there were a lot! . Anyway the sticking point seems to be the SALT and OT and PECS provision

I still have an "up to 6 weeks" on the SALT part.

An "when needed" on OT

and "PECS trained" rather than Pyramid trained.

for some obscure reason they have also taken out a 1:1 that they had originally written in the draft statemetn they suggested.

Did not sign anything as there is nothing to sign anyway.

What should I do next log an appeal with sendist or try with Dispute resolution service?

dragging up my old thread but Im have to get my appeal off and I still feel as confused as I did when I wrote this. I really cant seem to get my head around it.

How do I argue the PECS thing in a tribunal (that all staff have to have attended the PECS pyramid course opposed to "PECS trained".) what evidence would I have to provide. SALTS so far have not done much with PECS so how do I show that the Pyramid training is essential?

Do I need a SALT and an OT report to argue the "up to " and the "as needed" or is it enough that the hours have been vaguely specified already?

Contact PECS Educational Consultants who will I am sure be very helpful and send you something you can copy and paste which states quite stiffly that if you haven't done the 2 day training course, you are not in any way able to use or implement PECS effectively.

staryeyed Im in almost same situation as you am going to be taking Lea to tribulaan over salt, makton and pecs training or lack of sinc ethey already failed to implent the makton traing thats in his sxtatemet 3 hrs is all they had lol i did 48 hrs plus of makton and the proper pecs course

Well I contacted Pyramid who confirmed that they do not have proper training- they were very helpful.

This just confirms my belief in why the head has been so evasive and given me politicians answers. However I do feel worried as she did say DS would be accepted at the school fo r a trial period of 6 months. Im worried that she will say they dont meet his needs if we kick up a huge fuss.

Pheonix- we wanted makaton on ds statement but it was refused even though the school apparently have had some makaton training {hmm].

Glad Pyramid were helpful.
They have clear written guidance on what is and isn't an acceptable level of training that you could cut and paste into relevant document.

Why was makaton refused on statement?

Ds does not currently use makaton- he has always had limited immitation skills. I thinkit would be very useful to help Ds understand language (visual) and he has some immitation skills now. They said as he doesnt currently use it he couldnt have it.

Well, if they don't use it neither will he ever be able to or even access it to facilitate communication.

Bloody hell!!!!

make sure you push for makton training to cover the levles 1-8 am fighting LEA to have recognised that 3 hrs does not mean staff are makton trained especially as ds way beyond them , and how they are ment to be teaching him new signs etc when they cant communicate

staryeyed Good grief! Got my pom-poms going.

Firstly, you are NOT being OTT. Not by a million miles so stay confident. Secondly, the school has probably employed that tactic IN ORDER to curb you now. Once they've all been trained in PECS and Makaton, they're hardly going to throw out the one person they learnt the skill for are they?

I should imagine that in 6 months or so when it has all settled down there would be no point in throwing you out, - or, - you'll still be battling away and you can argue that they are not in a position to decide given that they haven't completed their training on how to meet his needs.

I really need help -I have to get this bloody appeal thing off asap. I cant get hold of the lady from IPSEA who was helping.

How do I provide evidence for Makaton if DS doesn't currently use it?

Would I need whole SALT and OT reports to change the vague parts into meaningful provision?

Ask Makaton to cite the evidence there is to show it is useful. Stick the references into yuor submission. It's a lot harder to argue with research than with opinion.

The words to remember are 'specify' and 'quantify' so if either OT or SALT recommend stuff, think of how it can be translated into meaningful provision.

Thus

'close ocntact will be maintained between school and home' won't wash.

'The SALT will visit X in his school for an hour every week' will.

With me?

Have you looked at IPSEA website for assistance? Please do. Very useful.

www.makaton.org/research/grove80.htm

Can you ds imitate? If his imitation skills are coming on that can be evidence why makaton wasn't appropriate but is now iyswim?

And EVERYTHING needs to be written as meaningful provision, otherwise what's the point of writing it down?

thanks everyone.

would I need a new SALT report to back up my argument?

Not necessarily.It depends on how well you know your stuff and your child. The salt is not going to write anything other than the most vague intervention plan (one that will be feasible in context of huge caseloads and understaffing).It is your job to disregard that (it is not your problem or issue) and think about how best to specify and quantify what you feel your son needs.

Hopefully that will tally with what peopel like the SALT say but it may not, so in that sense you have to fight yuor corner in a logical manner.

Whenever someone tells me I am 'getting something', when I am whinging about how useless it is, I've started to ask them directly.

'OK, what outcomes have their been for DS as a direct result of your input?'

'How do you know that those outcomes were down to your input?'

Even better to get it in writing, because you can see clearly where your and the LA opinions of provision differ.

Their waffly scrabbling around to answer your question will be good evidence to show they don't know what they are doing, - or at least it shows you clearly in advance what their arguments against you will be.

hth

Just to update you all..

we had a meeting with the LEA yesterday to try and come to an agreement before it reaches tribunal. Did not get very far managed to get some bits more specific but mostly it got us nowhere. I have a great lady helping me with this who really knows her stuff (thanks Davros). However we spent the best part of 2 hours arguing that DS needs to have people who know how to use pecs around him at all times and for the school to use pecs throughout the day instead of just at snack time. The teacher really doesn't seem to get PECS at all and keeps talking about symbols and routines. I was trying to explain that increasing Ds PECS vocabulary is essential to his learning the rest of the curriculum as he has such a limited understanding and PECS is the only way he can communicate and learn new words.

ah well I guess we will see what happens a the tribunal.... (will update in Feb).

BTW thank you very much you lovely ladies for persuading me to continue when I was ready to give up. Im so glad I didnt.