So if 'not specifying' in a statement is against the law......

[StarOfValkyrie]

why aren't the majority of LA Education employees in jail?

LOL. I love your view on life... You actually expect things to work how they should.

No. I don't expect it any more, but I am tenacious in my insistance that people SHOULD do what they are supposed to.

I never give up the model of how it SHOULD work. If I did I wouldn't know what I was asking for or demanding. I suppose though that I do rationalise what I demand though because the sheer incompetence is at levels no one person can tackle.

It seems ridiculous to me that they can get away with not specifying, when the law says they should, and their only repercussion of this is losing a tribunal (who then insists they specify) that has put parents through hell to get to.

civil law, innit?

nowt civil about it!

What about 3 points on their practising license?

I agree, it is most uncivil, if not verging on the downright rude, for the LEA to make someone go to Tribunal, to provide the support and therapy that all the professionals that were consulted as part of the Statutory Assessment process recommended!

It is also uncivil to put the phone down on me, just because I have asked you an awkward question, that you cannot answer and you are angry that you have been "put on the spot" by a "mere" parent.

It is downright uncivil, in fact you could say immoral, for the LEA to use the Tribunal system as a way of rationing SEN provision.

And then for the LEA to keep quoting the Lamb Inquiry at me to support their illegal position!

"terms such as 'regular' and 'frequently' should not be used because they are insufficiently precise. Similarly, phrases such as 'opportunities to' or 'might benefit from' are not sufficiently specific and should also be avoided.'

Source: Improving the quality of statements of special educational needs: Good practice in writing statements.

Available at nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/335017