[Sally44]

I put in a complaint to the LGO and have received their initial findings.
I will respond to them next week.

Worryingly the LEA have produced 'file notes' that cover their backsides regarding non-compliance. One of these notes refers to a conversation the SENCO had with me. It is a note made by the EP after a telephone call she says she received from the School SENCO. In this note the SENCO says that I have told her she needs to check with the EP BEFORE they make any changes to the programmes they are using.

This file note must be ficticious because it is dated a month before I became aware that any change had been made so I would not have even had that conversation with the SENCO! I raised non-compliance issues AFTER the change was made known to me at my son's IEP meeting.

The LEA says this note proves they complied and sought advice BEFORE they made changes. That simply did not happen. I also have an email from the SENCO which states they 'did not feel the need to contact the EP about this change'. Along with an email I sent to the SENCO after this file note date asking what the outcome of using this approach was. Now I wouldn't have asked that if I already knew it had ceased would I??

Do I pursue this, or just let it drop and write off the LGO process as a useless paper chase it seems to be??

Is this something that is common and I am going to come across again? This is starting to feel like dirty tricks and it is making me very nervous!

[baddad]

Maybe not fictitious... maybe you'd had a similar conversation with the senco in the past about other changes/proposed changes and she was referring back to that?
I don't know if senco's/schools need to contact the EP every time they make a an adjustment to how they plan to deliver support(?) It would depend, I guess, on how specifically defined the support was in the statement, and whether the new regime affected that... Even then, I guess, the EP's input would only be sought if deemed necessary and there was some sort of disagreement that couldn't be sorted without that input(?) Thinking back to my years in residential care work, and the Care Plans produced by SS etc., the Care Plan stated what support was needed. How it was delivered was largely down to the provider - and that only came into question if the needs weren't being met, or were not up to standard.
I don't know anything about the LGO, but only you can decide whether you're flogging a dead horse or not. I guess it all depends on how long and hard you've been flogging, and how necessary it is for the horse to get up again. If there are other, more healthy, looking horses available that are capable of getting the job done it might be easier/more beneficial in the long run to switch your attention to those.

Hope that's helpful

L&P

BD

[Sally44]

I may be flogging a dead horse! Not quite decided yet. I do want to speak with the LGO woman again because the LEA have not answered the questions. Then i'll make a decision. I do have other fish to fry, but it is a disappointing outcome so far.
I've looked back through previous correspondence and I have an email on file where I asked the SENCO about the progress my son has made with a certain approach. That email is dated two weeks after this file note in which I am supposed to have already spoken with the SENCO saying that she should have checked with the EP before they stopped this same approach.

And the file note is written like I told the SENCO to check with the EP BEFORE they changed the approach, when infact they changed it, I found out after I asked about progress, and then informed the SENCO that they should have queried it with the EP first as per his Statement.

I know that Statements don't usually specify, but my son's does which I why I contacted the LGO. So this file note is evidence from the LEA that they complied with the Statement.

[Sally44]

I think I know the reason for the date discrepancy now. But now sure of the implications.
Apparently the LGO found in my favour that the LEA did not carry out the annual review within 12 months.
However the LEA is saying that they could not carry out an earlier annual review because I had already raised a dispute with the current Statement before the last IEP meeting (which could have been the annual review if there was no dispute apparently).

Not heard that one as an explanation before.
I've also managed to find other correspondence between myself and the school which that shows my initial dispute was raised after this IEP meeting and therefore the LEA did have the opportunity to hold the annual review within the time frame and that file note must have been incorrect.

[call me jaded]

Well i would go back to the LGO and advise that you have no recollection of the phone call recorded by the EP and when you queried actions with the SENCO (two weeks later) you could have received a very straight-forward answer instead of what actually happened.

Hopefully the LGO will see it for what it is (baloney).

[cmuir]

Hi

Once upon a time, I would have said let it go, but I've encountered an increasing number of discrepancies when it comes to paperwork detailing who said what, etc by the school. My relationship with the school was at times strained, but I felt we reached an understanding that I wasn't out to make trouble, just simple out to ensure my son's needs were met. However, interestingly, I made a formal complaint relating to just that (originated from EP) on the grounds that a placing request was turned down, but X, Y and Z support would be put in place (this was something which the PAG group agreed on). However, nothing came to fruition. I then sought a mediation meeting only to discover that the mediator (who was employed by the LEA - something which was allowed in Scotland prior to 2009 Support for Learning Act) had made contact with the EP, Senior figure in the LEA, school before she'd made contact with me (hardly the actions of an unbiased mediator and particularly surprising given I hadn't provided any detail). Around the same time, I received a phonecall from a Paed who hadn't seen R in 4 years (she'd seen R from the age of 3 - 4.5 stating that R categorically does not have an ASD, namely Asperger Syndrome' - R was assessed by a specialist 6 months later with AS). She asked to assess him - my response was an emphatic 'no' and she was told why. I was advised by the Principal EP to 'drop the matter as I had more than enough to deal with'. For me, this stunk too much to let go (I felt there were too many coincidences and had been made aware that contact was being made between each other). Since then, my view has changed. Yes, some will label 'paranoia', but there are clearly instances where budgets come into the equation ... Need I say more?

Since then, I don't let anything go. I try to ensure that the paperwork which I see ie review meeting minutes, IEPs, etc is correct and I'm quoted accurately, etc. It just ensures that somewhere down the line, if unfortunately ones hand is forced to venture down tribunal route, that you're covered. Querying or requesting changes needn't be made a big issue and people are usually responsive. I'd give them a quick call and query.

Best wishes.

Caroline.

This post has been edited by cmuir: 02 August 2010 - 09:07 PM

[Sally44]

That is why I do try to keep paperwork as accurate as possible.
I don't deny that I told the SENCO that it was my opinion that the school needed to involve the EP before they made any changes to the programmes or support otherwise it would be non-compliance with the Statement.
But I didn't understand why the LEA is claiming that exchange happened a month earlier and in particular before the last IEP meeting.

It appears (although I am not 100% sure), that the reason the LEA is attempting to bring forward this exchange is so that they can claim to have had justifiable reasons why the Annual Review was not carried out inside of the 12 months time period.

I want to speak with the LGO person because they don't appear to be keeping strictly to the Code of Practice in the same way that a tribunal would.

For example my son's Statement says he will have an OT programme carried out in school and which will be reviewed termly. Although the OT is involved at home, she is not doing anything in school because school say they do not feel he needs any input. That, as far as I can see, is a 'change' to the Statement. If that was the schools'/OT's opinion then it should have been changed at the Annual Review, and not just stopped. But the LGO do not appear to be seeing it like this.

Also the LEAs explanation of why another programme detailed in the Statement has not been put in place is because they have not had the staff available to train in this programme. Is this a good enough explanation??

[There is also a note from the SENCO to the inclusion officer (just after the first tribunal), in which she says that the school cannot meet this Statement! So that might be useful, because that has been my experience.]