claire

Hi, I just wondered - have you spoken to your IPSEA rep about the possiblity of appealing the decision? I know that you can appeal if SENDIST have made error on a point of law. I am aware that there is a direction that many panels are following being that the child will need to be viewed as proberbly needing a statement before the assessment is initiated. How can anyone know the true extent of a child's needs without fully assessing them? Although the appeal was against the LEA refusing to assess, the fact that the school cannot provide from their own budget what your daughter needs would seem to me that the LEA would have a duty to assess and then make provision. I recently went to tribunal for my own son, it is such a stressful experience. Best wishes, Claire

The problem I would point out with the Toolkit is section 7 regarding quantification of statement provision. Our LEA consistently uses section 7 as a reason not to quantify and be less specific (if child is attending special school or resource unit). The Toolkit should be read in conjunction with the Code, however, it is the Code that is statutory guidance, not the toolkit. I went to tribunal for my son just over a week ago and the first thing the chair said is that in making decisions he looks at the Code of Practice and the 1996 Education Act, he held them up so we could all see and not once (to my relief!!) did he hold up or mention the Toolkit. The Toolkit was the primary reason the LEA did not want to be very specific or quantify. Section 7 of the Toolkit, I think, contradicts the Education Act (96), Code of Practice and case law. There is some useful guidance in the rest of it though.

Hi Simon, I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you are having. I do believe that there is so much more to inclusion than a child just being in the building. If a child requires fulltime 1 to 1, is away from the other kids and cannot bear them to come near e.t.c. then this cannot be inclusion. Schools do develop these reputations for being great for SEN but to be honest there is a few of them in my area and they are just ###### awful, I don't know who starts these rumors! My son has severe and complex language disorder, spent 3 years alledgedly being included. I had the same, no problems at school but meltdowns before we had left the school yard and of course school said it was nothing to do with them! I fought the last 2 years of it for a language unit. My son is there now and is much happier. The LEA still say it is the wrong place, that he should be in mainstream with autism outreach service or autism specific school. I believe communication is the key to everything. If the LEA does not have any of their own (LEA maintained) schools that you think can meet your son's needs why don't you look at what the independant sector can offer? If you get an assessment then proposed statement you can make "representations" for an independant school to be named on the statement. It is not about saying it's the best, but that the LEA's own cannot meet his needs and the independant can. I am not trying to push you down a paticular route, but the LEA's are closing down more special schools and units and I think shooting themselves in the foot because more and more parents are seeking independant special schools. It is worth asking if your son can be referred to a specialist SALT who has expertise in expressive and receptive language problems. The school he is at now sounds very ignorant. Regards, Claire

Thank you Adam, they are words I think of wisdom. I am sure of my legal rights, the meeting was a LEA only pre tribunal meeting, which they are entitled to have without me because it is to decide whether they will opose my appeal. I did though ask at school today what the "short form IQ test" had been and the Head did not have a clue what I was on about. Towards the end of the meeting she said that the only thing she could think of was PIVATS! All children who PIVATS are being used have their PIVAT sheets sent to the LEA. The Head was suprised and assured me this was not an IQ test, which I did know , PIVATS is just a way of measuring progress. It is interesting though that the LEA threw this information in as something it is not and this makes me wonder would SENDIST recognise PIVATS as an IQ test!! Hopefully not. I will let the forum know how I get on. Thanks again, Claire

Hello I am new here, I have a son of nearly 9 who has a diagnosis of Aspergers and it is my son that the EP made the bizarre comments that are reffered to in this subject. I would really appreciate any thought on my problem and apologize in advance as it is rather long: After many battles with the LEA and a near tribunal my son is in a language unit. He has very severe expressive and receptive language difficulties. His statement was amended to reflect a permenent place so this left the contents of the statement wide open. As it was previously vague, I have repeatadly challanged the LEA to specifiy and quantify in part 3 and list each and every one of his needs in part 2. I was nearly there apart from I know my son spends around 7 hours per week in a small group with the specialist SALT and I want the LEA to quantify 5. The LEA are horrified and I have the tribunal hearing in about 6 weeks. I am not so much worried about what I want and them refusing, they rest their argument on the SEN toolkit, mine is based on the education act and what case law says (although anything could happen!). However, now I have the bundle from SENDIST there is issues from there that I am not sure how to argue. For a start, there is a new statement in there that the LEA have dated January but I have not formally received, there are also comments from a pre tribunal meeting (all professionals except me attended) that have opened a whole can of worms. The Head EP who has never seen my son states that his needs are more autism than speech, but then goes on to say there is no ASD! Autism and Aspergers are not related. Then, there is a reference to an apparant short form IQ test that my son has had (I know nothing about this and have an appointment at school tomorrow) which means that he has MLD and will be a slow learner in terms of academic, social and SAL communication all throughout his life and that his needs are in line with his intelectual abilities, or better than would be expected. There has also been small changes in part 3, but significant I feel, such as the words "special educational needs" replaced with "learning difficulties" I feel that they are trying to shift the emphasis from language to MLD and are saying in other words that even with all the SALT in the world this is going to be as good as it gets so therefore no need to specify any therapy! I am worried that my son is going to be labeled with something I don't think he has. I know they will have to prove what they are saying, especially as it is new and not any reports I have. I really do believe that as his communication difficulties are severe that this would hold a barrier up to any child learning, just as Aspergers can. I don't understand how this can be seperated (MLD), how an EP can make this judgement on a child who does have the level of Ex and Re SAL difficulties that my son does. Please don't think I am down playing his Asperger's, I am not but just feel that everything that is done in the unit addresses both and I have to say, mainly through the SALT, she is great and for the first time in a long time, my son actually likes going to school. I just don't want my son classifying as MLD and them saying all the help in the world wont make a difference. Kind regards, Claire