Lamb enquiry - my LA's interpretation..

[2ChildrenPlusLA]

is that it means you shouldn't specify no. of hours of 1:1 provision.

Anyone got a good come-back and save me reading the whole thing?

Didn't know he's published it already.

Do you have a link?

No. I haven't seen it at all. Was duped into thinking it had been published by my stupid LA then.

Starlight x

S'okay. Got a good reply on yahoo so sent the gist to the LA.

morons

www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry/ this might help you, star.

Thank you lou That will go on my reading list

Can't see anything on the Lamb Inquiry website that states that Statements shouldn't specify hours of provision.

I'm currently having the same argument. LEA are telling me that the proposed Statement that they have issued with NO hours of 1:1 support specified is legal.

I sound like a broken record, I keep quoting the SEN Code of Practice and the Education Act at them, but they just keep saying "This is the way Crapshire County Council write Statements."

For those of us not on Yahoo! would you be kind enough to post your comeback to the LEA on here too? I could really do with it!

They are driving me insane!

I would have thought if you were quoting the law and they still weren't paying attention then there isn't a lot you can do other than go down the legal route. I suppose your leverage is how much they believe you will see it through.

Having said that my LA know I'm taking them to tribunal because I've been telling them since before the Statutory Assessement was ever agreed, but somehow that appears to be the path they want to go down. So because I'm resigned to that route it makes things a little easier. I don't live in false hope iygwim.

I'm guessing it means a delay of a minimum of 9 months before they have to pay for anything. They are daft though, because if I'm going to tribunal I'm going to ask for everything and for longer.

I have an advantage too, because my ds is of preschool age, I can do it over and over every six months for a bit. And I will.

I do seem to remember that one of the outcomes of the preliminary report was that LA should not be stating a specific no. of ours for children based on their diagnosis. Rather they should look at the individual needs of the child.

I wonder whether this has been misinterpreted!?

I'm resigned to going to appeal too, and I have told them so to their face and in writing.

Bloody furious with the LEA for not doing their job properly.

The full Lamb report hasn't been published yet. So it seems that the preliminary findings from the Lamb Inquiry are that LEA's should not be using strict criteria and banding of hours of support, depending on diagnosis, which could be considered dodgy anyway, as a blanket policy. Sadly, the needs of the child seem to be the last thing that they consider.

In terms of support, I have been told that whatever is in the final statement has to be provided even it you appeal against it. In my case the Statement offers NO hours of support at all, so not worth the paper it is written on.

I'm in that position too. No point in negotiating for a better statement because it will just delay the date that I can appeal, but on the other hand, if I don't try to improve it, DS is stuck with a worse pile of sh*te until the tribunal than I could possibly get him if I DID negotiate.

The system is diabolical!

Just read back what I have written and the only conclusion I can come to is that it is win/win for any LA to force the parents down the tribunal route.

Shocking.

And the result is that you get nothing more than your child's legal entitlement.

My LA is sending out the message that there is no point in even requesting a Statement unless you wish your child to go to specialist provision. There won't be any individual funding attached to statements anymore and they will only state needs and not amount of 1:1. We have also been told that we shouldn't use our new delegated funds for 1:1 support anymore. Many headteachers and sencos in our area have called a meeting with the NUT to see if this is legal.

Yep. My LA said there was no funding attached to statements any more. I told them 'any more' doesn't mean anything to me as this is my first child who needs a statement and if you assess a child's needs as full-time 1:1 support are you expecting the TA to work for free? What did they think I expected funding wise anyway, - a personal cheque?

I think I put as much in an email actually. They never responded.

The fact of the matter is that they can say whatever they want. The 'funding' thing is quite irrelevant. Parents don't apply for funding they apply for a statement of provision. How the LA meet this is irrelevant to all except the LA.