Proposed statement - is this legal?

[LegoLady95]

Hello, apologies for long post from a not-that-regular-poster,
I have received my DS's proposed statement today. He is just 3 and dx in dec 09 with severe ASD. Non verbal apart from echolalia, uses basic PECS.
The statement has nothing specific in part 3 in terms of quantifying hours for 1:1 or SALT. In the monitoring section it says an IEP must be drawn up listing specific hours etc. The specifics have to go in the statement don't they? Or they can wriggle out of it? Should I ask for a meeting?
Also, I was hoping he would be offered a place at a special nursery school for age 3-7 with ASD. He hasn't for this year (his nursery year), and is starting at a MS nursery. They have employed someone there for 1:1 but have not specified how much will be for DS, just 'as much as he needs'. I feel quite supported by the ms nursery, but am keen to get him into the special school for sept 11 his reception year. DS and I have met the head who said he would be 'perfect' for the ASD class.
Do I still need to name the special school on his statement now?
Thanks for getting this far

"8:34 b the second sub-section should specify all of the special educational provision the
LEA consider appropriate for all the learning difficulties in Part 2, even where some of
the provision will be made by direct intervention on the part of the authority, some will
be made by the child?s school from within its own resources, and some may be made
by the health authority. It is the LEA that is responsible for arranging the provision in
the statement, irrespective of who actually delivers it, unless the LEA is satisfied that
the child?s parents have themselves made suitable arrangements."

"8:37 LEAs must make decisions about which actions and provision are appropriate for which
pupils on an individual basis. This can only be done by a careful assessment of the pupils?
difficulties and consideration of the educational setting in which they may be educated.
Provision should normally be quantified (e.g. in terms of hours of provision, staffing
arrangements) although there will be cases where some flexibility should be retained in
order to meet the changing special educational needs of the child concerned. It will
always be necessary for LEAs to monitor, with the school or other setting, the child?s
progress towards identified outcomes, however provision is described. LEAs must not,
in any circumstances, have blanket policies not to quantify provision."

First question:
Is SALT listed in part 2 of his statement, or part 5?

If it is in part 2, then you need to get it quantified and specified in part 3. It always goes in pairs. Need in part 2, provision in part 3.

If it is in part 5, you need to reject it and assert that SALT is an educational need, so you require it to be moved from Part 5 to Part 3, and therefore, the Provision moved from part 6 to Part 3, and the provision specified and quantified.

WRT hours, you can see that the code uses 'should normally' - so there is no absolute duty to quantify. However, if you don't challenge it, then the statement will hold no water. You MUST state that you want a quantified provision in hours.

Lougle, thank you,
SALT is listed in part 3. There are 4 objectives, with provision to meet each objective listed, but nothing quantified in any of the provision. I will reject it,
thanks

They did this to me. IPSEA where fantastic.
When I rejected the first draft I wrote a detailed, bullet pointed letter (thanks to advice on here).

You have to get everything specified. Ours was all so vague it actually made me laugh.

The statement was rubbish but I took him out of mainstream and it was adequate for his needs in a specialised school.

Best of luck with it all.

Thank you all

It's really odd, but everyone LOVES IPSEA. When I phoned them, I got a really dodgy line, got cut off (fortunately due to the dodgy line she had taken my number), and she wasn't interested in the detailed wording of my statement and suggested I talked to Parent Partnership

I did as thefirstmrsDeVere did, and accepted that, vague and woolly as it was, it was fine for special school, because they just 'do it'.

ACE have a checklist for going through a statement - can also ask NAS education line if can't get through to IPSEA