Is this a valid reason for refusal????

[fightingtheLA]

Request for SA was refused this week . Reason as follows:
It is our view that ds is working at Nat. Curriculum levels which would place him outside the criteria for statutory assessment and it would appear that he is making steady progress at school and is appropriately supported at SA+.

I know they had to take learning into account but his main difficulty is social communication. Never heard that if you meet Nat Curriculum levels you can't be assessed!
Any views on this ladies??.

Typical bollocks (the bit about the NC levels anyway). They tried this on us as well. Our DS now has a full-time statement (and is on the G&T register too, just to give an idea of how not-behind he is).

They MIGHT have an argument that if he's making steady progress he is sufficiently well supported academically, but not just a blanket 'meets the levels'.
Someone posted the perfect rebuttal taken direct from the SEN COP the other week -- can't spot it right now but hope someone more effiecnt will do so for you.

This is the same reason we were given when my son was in yr2. However, when I accessed his records this academic year(son now yr10), I found that 3 reports put in just after the SA, by CAMH, had told the school he had been poorly supported by previous school, if he didn't make progress he would need SA. We were never informed of this, he never made the expected progress, but neither has he ever been statemented. So effectively, though he was poorly supported according to the LEA his needs were being met!

I posted this on your other thread, don't know if you saw so have reposted.

I'd maybe be a bit concerned that your being told he is meeting national curriculum requirements - can they show you how, where, how often.

I mention this because I was given my sons summative assessments by one school, in lieu of his educational records. There was significant differences between the work even though it was marked at the same level; all the work was also homework (told by one teacher that when marking he looked at the previous level and moved the mark up by a whole level or sublevel depending on how much progress he thought child had made).

Because the next school wouldn't recognise son's difficulties I took a number of tacks with homework which I thought would be used for assessment purposes; left child to complete on own, level 3, I provided the usual amount of support level 4, I completed one piece entirely on my own level 7 (accepted). Reported end of year grades 4, 5, 6; which proved the child didn't need help - then I asked for summatively assessed work and told the school what we'd done, also queried why two subject grades reflected the higher levels child achieved while the subject where level 7 achieved was lowered (they can't answer). Suddenly they are a bit more helpful, though still trying to fob me off.

I have also tried to get all of last years assessed work remarked - guess what nobody is prepared to do it. Spoke to QCDA, LEA, LEA Curriculum Inspector, SENCO and child's tutor asked two colleagues. When I asked SENCO during a phone conversation I was told they didn't do AFL at school; she got off the phone PDQ. At a later meeting I asked what they use to mark if not AFL. Backtracked, denied that she'd said AFL not used, blah blah blah, grading still not explained. So despite only being given a level descriptor on reports it appears nobody can explain how that level was achieved .

Maths is the same, bumped up every KS test, meeting the schools needs not my childs.

Abusing level descriptors is just another means of fobbing you off an 'proving' your child doesn't need help, is making progress.

I would appeal.

Thanks Lancelottie- thougt it was bollocks.
Minx-I know that he is meeting his targets academically it's his social communication difficulties that are causing the problems. I plan to appeal.

I'd also suggest looking at this link on SMART targets for IEP's. This could help you pin the school down on the support they will provide and give proper examples of child's progress over the next academic year, which could incease your evidence base. www.wrightslaw.com/bks/feta2/ch12.ieps.pdf

Blanket policies are illegal - LAs must not let a policy fetter their discretion so gear your evidence to the law and focus on what a Tribunal would say. I think this has alot to do with the kind of evidence you can get of needs which go beyond school's capacity.

Bear in mind:

Section 8.13 of the Code of Practice indicates that a statutory assessment would be necessary if were shown that the child?s learning difficulties call for:
-regular and frequent direct teaching
by a specialist teacher
-daily individual support from a learning support assistant.
-a significant piece of equipment such
as a closed circuit television or a
computer or CD-ROM device with
appropriate ancillaries and software.
-the regular involvement of
non-educational agencies

London Borough of Bromley and Special educational Needs Tribunal and Others,
QBD and CA (1999) ELR 260
It is generally accepted that this judgement established that life skills are considered to be part of educational provision.
"The judgement at Queen's Bench Division took as the starting point the definition of
education' in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, one part of which is: 'the process of nourishing or rearing; the process of bringing up; the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life."

This judgement confirmed that a child's need for occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech therapy could be a special educational need.

n the case of The Secretary of State for Education exparte Lashford 1988 1FLR 72,

Lashford made it clear that there were two groups of children with special educational needs, one group who would not require a statement and one who would. In the first group, although the children had a learning difficulty that required special educational provision, the school could manage this themselves, either on their own, or with help they could call upon. It was only the second group whose needs were beyond the school managing on their own, that required a statement. For these children it would be necessary for the LEA to be fully involved to assess the child?s needs, to determine what special educational provision should be put in place, and to arrange that this was done.

You should also bear in mind s.323 of the 1996 Education Act which says that a SA is required if under s.323 (a) a child has special educational needs, and (b) it is necessary for the authority to determine the special educational provision which any learning difficulty he may have calls for

You can argue that a SA is required to draw together advice from different professionals and shed more light on the complexity of his difficulties. This should make it possible to determine the type and level of support that will enable him to make satisfactory progress.

I would also add that it is professionals and not teachers who can judge satisfcatory progress on issues like social communication!

fighting the LA

Oh bollocks0 to this LEA!. They're talking nonsense and utter balls. You don't belive this and that's great but how many parents on receiving such a letter would give up?.

Appeal their crass decision - would also read IPSEA's section "Refusal to assess" and get your appeal in.

www.ipsea.org.uk