UltraMum

Ask the consultant for the melatonin then!!!! if CAMHs are then go round them!

krystaltps is right - there are different levels of comprehension tested in the SATs style tests rather than just the ability to read the words ... this is from the QCA site http://www.qca.org.uk/13882.html 1 and 2 are fine for our children but the rest get increasingly difficult - hence they can be an excellent reader and not be at the same level re comprehension ... I remember reading in one of Wendy Lawson's books about her needing to be taught to "read for meaning" but never really understood what she meant until i heard her explain it in person once - she basically read the words as they appeared in the book ie read each word individually because they were there but never constructed an overall meaning to what she was reading unless she was told that she had to answer questions on the text!

J was 11 y'day and my mum rang to say happy birthday - usually I speak to her first and prime her with some topics as his conversation skills consist of yes, no, don't know and can't remember. DH answered the phone and handed it straight to J ... imagine my surprise when he told her without prompting that a helicopter had arrive at the school during the day and then why it had arrived!!!! My mouth was wide open with shock Spoke to Mum afterwards and she said it was the longest conversation she ever remebered having with him!!! ____________________________________________________________________________ Made up for the fact that J's teacher had forgotten to get the class to sing Happy Birthday and to give out J's cakes - only 4 more weeks to go at this school edited for typo!

If the LEA turned the school down then you should have a right of appeal ... according to the ACE website ... http://www.ace-ed.org.uk/advice/booklets/Assessment.html

I think the screen is suposed to be at eye level to avoid neck problems ...

Try pointing out that at the tribunal you will be discussing placement for your son - how are you supposed to make an informed decision without even visiting the school??

Added my twopennorth

Anything here help? http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/s...yppublications/

Jonathan snorted for quite a few years ... we had a nasal 'puffer' thing that he used - used to dry his nose out but led to bad nose bleeds - eventually he sort of grew out of it (little comfort I know ) and then moved on to slightly more unpleasant habits. He's nearly 11 now and still can't blow his nose properly.

Hi all Just fell across this and can't seem to see a reference on the boards to this: http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp...380&a=13718 Apologies if it's already been posted - just finished another letter to the LEA re J's transition support - stiil a bit down but been to a pamper days for carer's week LINK to the survey from the NAS page wasn't working at 3:45pm 11th June so I have emailed the above contact

Thanks for all the hugs - had a brighter day today - all those positive vibes help Who changed the forum layout while I was away ??? - can't find the smilies as easy Love the new avi Baddad! Still battling on with the statement - looking hopeful though

I've not been posting for a while as I've been really low and done my usual which is to withdraw from socialising. Doc has doubled my antidepressants so hopefully they will kick in soon ...

<'> <'> <'> <'> <'> <'> <'>

I don't know - they may have had to explain your child's absence - it depends on how they have gone about it really

The private Ep we have used has been as thorough as the one Mumble described. We have paid half 14 days before the visit and then the rest on receipt of the report

Is this is Kathryn? http://www.ncaction.org.uk/index.htm

It's based on the marks in the tests ... http://www.qca.org.uk/12361.html http://www.qca.org.uk/eara/176.asp but quite what the actual level looks like and what the children are supposed to be able to de at each level seems to be a closely guarded secret!!!

I took this fantatic piccie of a crocus and then when I transferred it to the computer i found that there was something else in it too ... http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/4086116...add8b2411_o.jpg Thought I'd better add a link in case i change my avvie!!!

Hi Witsend Some quotes for you: School Admissions Code 2007 This new Admissions Code was brought into effect on the 28 February 2007, following a consultation during the previous year. This Code has a stronger statutory basis than its predecessors. All admission authorities are required to act in accordance with its mandatory provisions. 1.50 2.6 http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrd...SA-CODE2007.pdf It seems to me that - as long as your son's statement names the school - the school have to admit him - even if there are no spaces in the normal way ... of course the LEA may not name this particular school on the statement but that's a whole different kettle of fish ...

Sorry about the late reply - had a busy week - yes please - I'll pm you my email addy

Can't wait to hear what she says ....

Hi there

DS had problems so we tailored our language and avoided metaphors, idioms and sarcasm, as well as teasing etc ... now he's 10 going on 11 we are starting to include these as he is now more aware that sometimes things are not literal - if he's puzzled he usually asks ... I used to think we were always going to have to use bland language but things do change

From IPSEA Sometimes, LEAs determine not to quantify or specify provision for children whose statements provide for them to attend special schools. There is nothing in law which limits the obligation to quantify and specify provision to those children not attending special schools. However, in E v London Borough of Newham and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [2003] ELR 286, the Court of Appeal accepted that, where a child was attending a special school, a lower level of specificity may be appropriate. LEAs often seek to rely on that decision to argue generally that provision for a child at a special school should not be specified or quantified. However, the obligation still remains to specify and quantify provision, except where there are good reasons not to do so. Merely attending a special school is not a sufficient reason not to specify provision and "flexibility" must be something that the child needs. As the Court of Appeal said in a case brought by IPSEA, (R (on the application of IPSEA Ltd) v Secretary of State for Education and Skills) [2003] ELR 393): "any flexibility built into the statement must be there to meet the needs of the child, and not the needs of the system."