I'm tempted to post some hints for this SENCO...

[humblebum]

...here who wants some advice on how to deal with a 'difficult parent' and SALT who doesn't seem to know her place.

I'm sure some of the teachers/SENCOs used to think the same thing before DS was statemented!

I have a DD, and all through primary, the SenCo was saying 'your DD is at the lower end of average' while refusing to give me levels, so when I applied for a statement in Y5, and Y6, I was told that as the SenCo is saying your DD is at the lower end of average, we will not assess for a statement. Turns out that my DD was working on p-scales at the end of Y6. Which is NOT 'the lower end of average' by anyone's stretch of the imangination. Now the SenCo at the Secondary school has said she can't understand why my DD hasn't been statemented.

If I hadn't been made to feel like such a PPITA by the primary SenCo, then the last 7 yrs of my DD's education may not have been wasted in the way they were. The SenCo even told me both times I tried to apply for a statement myself (no PP person in my area at the times), that she 'wouldn't help me and would put obstacles in my way because it was too much paperwork for her'.

Unfortunately, my DD also spent Y's 4-6 with terrible teachers too. Y4 she had an NQT that couldn't control the class (my DS1 has her this yr, and she's totally different now she has a few yrs experience!), Y5 the teacher was so bad that she was sacked just before half term this yr (it's taken this long for the HT to get rid!) because she threw a library book at a different SN dc that couldn't read it out to the class, and DD's Y6 teacher did not believe that SN dc's should be in MS, and weren't her responsibility.

YYet all bar 2 of her Secondary teachers are excellent with her! So it really does depend on the SenCo and the teacher/s as to how much help an sn dc gets, and how hard you have to 'fight' to get what you need for your dc.

Hi, Loudlass. I have been in much the same position as you in regard to my daughter. Always being told that she was just behind in numeracy. She has just been assessed as the LEA agreed to statutory assess for other difficulties that she had and she was under the 1st percentile in numeracy. My daughter has been told that she wasn't trying, that she was rude, that she was attention seeking, that she was manipulating/controlling situations in order to gain attention. She has been ignored when she needed help in class, when she has been ill, when other children have been allowed to bully her. She has been unable to attend school. So we changed school and then all the promised help and support at the new school failed to happen. My daughter was then ordered to take part in an activity by the head teacher, that proceeded to cause her sensory overload, after I had asked her to be excused from this activity and had given the medical reasons why.
My daughter has presently been unable to attend school in her transition year 6 for the last 4 months.
Then out of the blue social services put a card through the letterbox.
My daughter has 4 NHS diagnoses from various professionals and 1 private diagnosis and has been assessed by the EP for a statutory assessment at this stage. I also have 2 medical notes from my daughters GP as to why her absence is occurring.
Apparently it is in regard to her attendance falling below a certain level.
So they called a meeting with the Head of the current primary school, previous primary school and a body from the educational medical service. We chose not to attend as we thought the meeting would be counterproductive as the chair of governors was investigating a formal complaint we had placed against the Head teacher.
The Head from the current primary school chaired the meeting. It was supposed to be about finding a way forward for my daughter.
A few days later we received the minutes.
The minutes were full of chat about us as parents mostly running us down and trying to make us look as if we had Munchausen?s by proxy, full of lies saying that we had made threats, done this that and the other. Not one part of the meeting was about finding a way forward for our daughter. They even discussed our son saying that we were trying to do the same thing with him. Our son has so far a verbal diagnosis of ASD and a written diagnosis of severe dyspraxia.
We have had to voice record meetings with social services, write to MPs, the Director of Education and the Managers of numerous services in order to clear our names from the accusations. I wish I had better experience of head teachers and teachers but I don't. Hence perhaps my strongly held views which wherever agreed with by certain posters or not are my views which I am entitled to express. I did tone down my opinion as I know that all head teachers and teachers are not like this. I am also not that bothered about my spelling and grammar when engaged in a forum discussion which is not work orientated and is in my own free time.

Note: Checked for grammar and spelling using Microsoft word.

My main problem is that DD gets to school every day, as although she does school refuse, I have never accepted her NOT going to school. And this to a certain extent has probably 'covered up' just how hard it is to get her there. It's only now that they are seeing the other side of it, now I don't/can't physically put her in the classroom now she's at secondary, as opposed to me having to do it at primary as we had to/have to catch a bus to the primary, and I have 2 younger DS's attending the primary, so have to go.

I too got all the 'munchausen's' allegations when DD was younger, but that has finally stopped since DS1 started school and was found to be 'G&T', thus 'proving' to the school/LEA that it's not that or DS1 wouldn't have been consistently producing lvl 4 work when he was in Y2....

The evil SenCo taught DS1's top maths set this year, and apologised to me for blaming me for my DD's problems, as DS1 is so different that it must be DD's SN causing her problems , not me. Nice of her to tell me that after my DD had left the school, and her having wasted 5 yrs of my DD's education blaming me...It took EVERY ounce of self control I had not to beat the crap out of her commit physically violent acts towards the SenCo at that point....

My daughter was physically freezing and could not be moved or carried. When she was there she ran away. For a child to be left with tears running down their face because of the way her class teacher treated her let alone your own child and to be treated that badly that she tried to run away is abuse. Oddly enough I too have a socially and academically bright child now in this teachers class and she loves him. She just doesn't seem to get the children who have SEN difficulties.

By wasuup3000 Fri 19-Feb-10 21:42:31
Why bother its only TES the website for teachers who are intellectually challenged anyway?

By givememoresleep Sun 28-Feb-10 19:56:06
Um, Ailith - given that this is the SN board, we're not particularly keen on phrases like "You are clearly an idiot who is intellectually challenged yourself". After all, it's not a particularly tactful phrase to use as an 'insult' when many parents on this board have children with learning disabilities/ difficulties...that's why (I think) ouyve pulled wasuup up on what she said.

I think, if you read the insults properly, in chronological order, you will see that it was in fact Wasuup, who used the expression "intellectually challenged" first - about teachers. I take it you think that's acceptable then?

In my world, I do not refer to anyone in such terms.

No but she apologised and if you'd read things chronologically you would have seen that.

Anyway, many of us have very poor experiences with schools and teachers, particularly around ASD issues (which are often woefully misunderstood) so, as I say, frustration boils over on a post like this.

However, wasuup apologised, so let's move on........

ailith

I don't see the point on going on and on about something persistently. Everyone has different points of view on a subject, that's life. If you want to read my post a certain way and twist it around to mean something else, that is up to you. The phrase you took gumption with was meant more about questioning the common sense of some (but not all) teachers rather than their intelligence and it was no way meant to compare with the difficulties our children may or may not have.

debs is right-lets move forward.

Having been a SENCo for 15 years, and also the parent of a Statemented child I can see all sides of the OP.
Sometimes parents are egged on by other professionals and told their children need a Statement, when in fact the child is making progress at School Action Plus. One classic I had was a child with Hydracephalus. The parent was told by the Community Paed that she thought the child needed a Statement. The parent assumed that because the consultant had said this that a Statement was going to be automatically granted. She didn't understand that Statements are based on educational need and that having a medical condition does not equate to an educational need.From the school's point of view it was obvious that the child would need a Statement eventually, but as our LA had said that a child neded to be 2 1/2 years behind to get a Statement on the grounds of educational achievement and there were no accomanying behaviour problems it was a question of timing. You will be glad to know we did get her a Statement at the end of Yr 2 in time for her transfer to Junior School, but it was touch and go. If we had been refused a Statutory Assessment we would have had to wait another six months before reapplying and she would have started Junior School on School Action Plus.
I think this SENCo is probably in a similar situation and has been said was just "sounding off".
If parents want to persue a parental request for Statutory Assessment the IPSEA wbsite is worth a look.

You see this is where the problem is - parents are told things like:

"as our LA had said that a child neded to be 2 1/2 years behind to get a Statement on the grounds of educational achievement"

This is not legal. It amounts to a blanket policy and too often schools and LAs confuse policy with legal principle.

When a parent takes advice from an organisation like IPSEA or ACE, they are told the criteria and that, although LAs can have policies, they cannot fetter their own discretion. So you raise this with school, but everyone's working to LA 'policy' so parents look like they're not being realistic.

So, Imahappycamper, in the case you quote, a parent would have every right to feel frustrated by a school following a LA policy which bears no relation to the LEGAL criteria for obtaining a statement. There may well have been absolutely no need to wait and allow a child to get needlessly behind. LAs might refuse to assess but parents can take these legal points to a Tribunal who are not so interested in the LAs policy but are more interested in the LAW.

In reply to one of your posts further up the page, Debs, the different professions involved with a SN child just do not trust or respect each other. CAMHS seem reluctant to talk to school. Educational Social workers do not bother when the school nurse passes on a referral to them.

debs40- she was making progress at SA+, and was having a lot of support from a very good LSA. And we did submit the RSA, we didn't make the child wait. She would have been unlikely to get a Statement in Year 1 because of the need to be significantly behind other children.

"She would have been unlikely to get a Statement in Year 1 because of the need to be significantly behind other children".

That's appalling to have been advised that. It smacks of LEA blanket policy which is illegal in law, LEA's know the law so they cannot plead ignorance.

That's nonsense. DS1 had his statement in place by the time he started reception and DS2, before he even started nursery.

'V'

it's half a day for teacher training atm in my uni, to cover all sen, and it has a high absence rate

I don;t think you should be allowed tp practice without having attended a minimum, also gp's as I am told (by a reliable person, former prof in sn field) that many teaching hosps. have dropped it as unimportant: so when you take your child to the GP you may well know far more than them about the postential SN just by recognising it!

Madness.

there are crap, bigoted teachers out there who genuinely seem to want to do actual harm to SN kids and their famillies, though why I don't know- I think for us they think we are terrible for having taken (I wouldnt say boys current school is a problem in that way- SNCO and teachers very genuine) a palce for our children that could ahve gone to someoone who fits the school's bizarrely MC image.

But you know there are stunning teachers too, who make a difference every day. We put 2, a TA and a class teacher, forwards for those teaching awards this year as they are so good.

I posted this on another similar thread but anyway:

at school I remember 4 teachers. 2 for being nasty bigots (we were a bit different as a family, Mum was struggling with MH and dad had other issues)- oine told teh class when I was awy one day that I was a cretin and proceeded to lecture or exactly what a cretin was , another did everything she oculd to get me booted out of her class and indeed suceeded and I ws sent to a SN science group on her behest despite high level grades in the subject.

OTOH I had a wonderful French teacher who discovered what was going on at home, amde adjustments and allowed me to really shine and succeed; and a wonderful insopiring SN science teacher (H/ Bio) who allowed me to help deliver lectures, expand my knowledge and stuck up for me when needed- eg when evil teachers wanted to put me in detention becuase I only had a carrier bag until my aprent's pay day (I was hauled up in front of school about that too).

Funnily enough I ditched cretin woman's class at first go, didn't bother with science cow's Chem lessons until post-16 (and passed GCSE LO), but did very well in French and Human Bio, even though a school refusal to put me in for anything other than lowest level bio meant I needed stupid grades to get my C and anything else was impossible.

The ones with teh biggest influence by far have been the good ones as they taught me I really an do it (right up to the MA now....) but the crap ones have permanently affected my confidence and concept of how likeable I am.

And Alith whilst I detest name calling, this is indeed meant to be a safe space for SN famillies, partly to vent, and as such people are supposed to be careful what tehy say: thats why it is opt in.

I don't know if you have an SN child or not, and all are welcome jhere, but it is all with a caveat of sensitivity and understanding of occasional stress and venting.

And the 'V@ earlier was a C&P from GMS's post about the alck of SEN training during training

Where, in law, does it say that the only criterion is that you have to be'significantly' behind.

SEN COP talks about SEN making it much harder for a child to learn than other children of the same age.

There is no obligation to wait for evidence of years of failure. So while in your case, you might have been right, the policy considerations you are applying DO NOT reflect the law.

Hence, parents frustration.,,..

Exactly Debs.

First Q I always ask of a new SENCO: what additi0onal training do you have.

the ones who have won't be offended. The ones that do oftena re. And the ones that don't and know I am doing an MA in ASD....

er, are not keen

Part of the definition of Special Educational Needs:
EA 1996 312 2a)he has significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children his age.

If you can tell me where it defines what significantly means I will be grateful.
I think that is part of the problem-no objective measure so LAs invent one.

Imahappycamper....your previous post said the child had to be 'significantly behind' other children. This is different to a child finding it significantly greater difficult to learn than other children - hence my post.

One relies on outcomes - i.e. failure. The other is about capacity - i.e. are there barriers which exist which may prevent this child accessing the curriculum?

Parents are concerned with addressing the latter; schools and LAs tend to be interested in the former. Failure is not the guiding criterion but posts like this SENCOs suggest that it is.

Only one approach is legal.

Added to that is most school's conviction that you have to have months of SA+ IEPs indicating failure before you can apply to the LA. That is about the working relationship between schools and their LA and the guidance they are issued. It is not a legal requirement.

A Stat assessment can be applied for whenever it is considered that a school is unlikely to be able to meet the child's needs (e.g because they are complex etc)out of their own budget. There is no statutory obligation to make a child wait for evidence of failure.

This is why parents are frustrated. SENCOs (not necessarily you) need better training in the law and the COP and their legal obligations to the child under SEN law and the DDA (which tends to be completely forgotten!).

'mahappycamper....your previous post said the child had to be 'significantly behind' other children. This is different to a child finding it significantly greater difficult to learn than other children - hence my post.

Exactlu a child may be able to keep pace with additional coaching and far greater effort but why should they be forced into that draining life? It is unsustainable usually and harmful to the basic concept of having a childhood

"too often schools and LAs confuse policy with legal principle"

yes I have noticed that too Debs re my summer-born deferral hobbyhorse.

"as our LA had said that a child neded to be 2 1/2 years behind to get a Statement on the grounds of educational achievement"

but this is illegal isn't it?

www.ipsea.org.uk/Apps/Content/HTML/?id=114