Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

SN children

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on special needs.

Flip

Original poster

So, dd1's final statement has come through - what do you think it says? drum roll please...

16 replies

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 09:49

Expecting Final statement by 7th Jan.

Got email yesterday to say it was being sent out, so called to talk to them.

they wanted to issue it without naming a school so we asked them if they were refusing to name a school, and quoted COP at them (plus a lot of other faffing, natch)

So, they have sent it out, naming.... wait for it...

the preschool that we removed dd1 from at end October as she was not progressing there, and in fact there were serious health inplications to her remaining there (food wise, and toiletting wise)

dd1 is 5. legally, she should be in school, not pre-school. (August birthday, so she should be in Yr1 now, so not even a case of missing reception)

Also, in the round of applications that the LEA made for statementing (dd1's papers sent ot 5 schools, onw of which she is currently attending), the pre-school was not applied to. So, if no formal application was made to the placement, can the LEA now name it? What is the point of the applications if they then go ahead and name a different, random place?

And can they name a pre-school as appropriate placement when dd1 is clearly school age?

OP posts:

Original poster

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 09:50

oh, meant to say, we are accepting so hat we can appeal and go to tribunal, but was just wondering what others thought the LEA might be playing at?

OP posts:

cyberseraphim · 22/12/2009 10:07

Sounds odd if she is too old now for pre school - Could they just be incredibly stupid and not even realise?

cornysxmasmuffmusic · 22/12/2009 10:14

Phone the statementing officer and tell him/her you want it changed.I reckon they are playing a funding game. It won't be a mistake.

Original poster

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 10:16

I agree about the incredibly stupid bit , but they definitely do realise.

dd1 was there last year because they had no other provision for her. she made absolutely no progress at all, and that was bad enough for her reception year.

they have no other Yr1 children there (preschool is licenced to end of Yr1) so no suitable peer group anyway.

And this is the preschool that failed to notice that dd1 knew her numbers and alphabet, and couldn't even get her talking to them in more than a year of attendance (dd1 is NEVER silent )

not even sure (other than to take the money) why the preschool would take her back, tbh - they know what we think about them and their methods, and we didn't exactly have a cordial relationship at times - I'm sure they were glad to see the back of us!

It just seems such a bizarre move on the part of the LEA. they'd applied to 5 schools which all said they could take dd1. granted they were not necessarily going to roll over and name anABA school (our preference) but to name something that is clearly not suitable just on technical grounds?! Madness, surely? how on earth will it look at tribunal?

OP posts:

cyberseraphim · 22/12/2009 10:18

What does licensed to end of year 1 mean ? Does that mean they could in theory take Year 1 pupils such as DD1 ?

Original poster

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 10:18

corny - x-post

it definitely isn't a mistake, but I just can't see what they hope to gain by ti.

No hope of getting them to change it. they had a choice of 5 schools they could name (3 of which we wouldn't have been happy with anyway, so if they just wanted to annoy us they could at least have named a technically (in their view) suitbale school)

OP posts:

Original poster

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 10:22

yes, they can apparently teach a Yr1 syllabus.

Have seen no evidence of this, mind, as they have no other yr1 pupils, and weren't even teaching reception year stuff, as far as I could see.

Obv the curriculum needs to be differentiated (it's an ASD specific pre-school) but since dd1 is broadly following her age group on her home programme - countig up to 20, knows her Jolly Phonics and is starting to blend together in early reading, etc and the preschool were not only not teaching her this stuff but also, crucially didn't even know that she was capable of it, I'mnot that convinced they should be licenced to Yr1...

OP posts:

cyberseraphim · 22/12/2009 10:24

I see what you mean - but won't they be their (cheapskate) logic? that she can be technically slotted in there ?

cornysxmasmuffmusic · 22/12/2009 10:25

do you have anyone to phone - have you had any help getting this far?

Original poster

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 10:32

we do have help, corny, form dd1's ABA cons, and have a team lined up for evidence at tribunal etc.

cyber - that is undoubtedly their thought process, but their own EP advice describes dd1 as silent and disengaged to the point of catatonic at this pre-school, and lively, engaged, interested, chatty etc (to the point of talking to EP and requesting he join in games and singing - he even remarked that she was the most social and socially motivated child he'd observed in a long time) whilst at home and on her ABA programme. He said he's never seen such a wide gulf between how a child presents ina setting and hos she presents elsewhere

So how they can name the pe-school as suitable is mystifying

OP posts:

WetAugust · 22/12/2009 17:39

Silverfrog

The LA must name a school on a final statement. the school they choose should be "suitable to your DD's age and ability - those are the key criteria.

Obviously the school should also be able to meet the requirements stated in Part 3 of the Statement.

The fact that your DD has already attended this school and has been 'failed' by that school should be in your favour at Tribunal.

The LA should consult with a school and show it the proposed Statement before naming it, to ensure that the school are satisfied it can meet the needs. Again- if they failed to do that it's another thing in your favour.

Do you have a school in mind that you would like her to go to?

Meanwhile, it's respond in writing within 15 days saying you reject the named school as unable to meet DD's needs and wish school xxxx to be named.

Best wishes

Original poster

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 17:59

Thanks, WetAugust.

We are going to accept the statement to finalise it and move to appeal. we have already told them where we want dd1 to attend - she has already started there, and it is one of the schools that the LA actually did consult with.

The LA has ignored our -rewriting-- suggestions to the proposed statement, and so the pre-school they have named does meet the requirements in part 3; the problem is that the requirements listed in part 3 wuold not even come close to meeting dd1's needs odd that they match, eh?

I htought that about the LA consulting the school first. I guess they skipped that bit as dd1 had been a pupil there ubtil recently, but technically we didn't agree to her papers being sent there (if indeed they were, I have my doubts).

We have a feeling that this is all to buy them some time - if we move to tribunal we will have a 6 month wait or so, by which time they may well have space in one of their provisions (La provisions currently full, which is why we have got so far down the road of out of county/independent provisions) to bring to the table at the tribunal meet...

still, back to wait and see, i guess

OP posts:

WetAugust · 22/12/2009 20:29

Sounds like a Parts 2,3 and 4 appeal then Silverfrog.

I had to do the same - ask for a Final Statement just to move it on to SENDIST, but I made sure I wrote to the LA and told them that I didn't accept the Final Statement but was only requesting it to enable me to appeal.

My son's first Statement named his then current school but the LA did consult the school first.

Best wishes

FuckingNinkyNonk · 22/12/2009 22:02

Why did they send it now? To try to cut short the timeframe in which you can make your appeal? (I presume they know you will be?)

Original poster

silverfrog · 22/12/2009 22:24

They originally wanted us to agree to wait beyond the deadline, so that dd1's case could be referred back to SN placement panel, which meets the day after we were due to receive our final statement...

so we refused to wait (or rahter, we requested that we received our final statement within COP time parameters), and they got stroppy and sent it immediately

we are still waiting for the paper copy (only sent yesterday), and will then be moving straight to appeal.

they know we will go to tribunal, just as they have always known that it is an ABA school we are after.

OP posts:

grumpyoldeeyore · 23/12/2009 00:00

they will have named it as the best option to argue at tribunal that they can make autism specific provision for your child through LEA provision and don't need to name an independent ABA school. They will say it can meet her needs. But as you say they have probably just named it as the best option if other places can't take her to buy time.

Our special school nursery takes pupils up to end yr 1 and they then have to basically reapply to the main part of the school.

Perhaps if no-one had room and they did not name this school they would have had to pay for home tutors etc until a place became available

can you raise it with your MP? Given Lamb report etc SEN high profile at moment.

Flip