Athena

Hi Grace, that's very helpful, just the kind of thing that I was looking for! Thank you. Does anyone know if there is something similar for Ed Psychs and OTs? Also the LEA have sent copies our my private SALT and OT reports to the Primary Care Trust (PCT) but haven't said who they have sent them to. Is this allowed? The LEA will also be sending in an OT and SALT to prepare reports on DD to counter my private reports, which I expected,but I didn't expect them to send off my private reports to the Health Service for their comments. Sorry for all the questions, feeling in a bit of a pickle at the moment!

Thanks so much for your replies, it really means a lot to me. I am not going to be intimidated by the LEA's bully boy tactics. I will do my very best for my daughter. I will go to the Tribunal with my head held high, my heart pounding and palms sweating , with a bottle of Rescue Remedy in my handbag and I will tell the panel members the truth. I know my daughter better than anyone else and I know what she needs educationally. Feel better already! You may have to bear with me though, as I am sure that I will have more questions and wobbles on the way! As to how the LEA officers sleep at night, never mind Horlicks, I should think that with the misery they cause to families (that they are meant, allegedly to be helping) on their conscience, they must need knock out drops!

Thanks bensmums2, and well done to you for getting a Statement for your son! I just keep thinking of the aims of the Lamb Inquiry and how so far, in practical terms, it has not made one jot of difference!

I am going to SEND/IST tribunal for our daughter, who is in mainstream. We are not going for a specialist placement or an independent school, yet the LEA are still going to the expense of employing a barrister to represent them at the Tribunal. Is this just a a scare tactic to intimidate parents? Any one else with experience of coming up against a barrister at SENDIST? Would be grateful for any advice, as TBH, it has put the wind up me a bit, but I will not be deterred! So much for the Lamb Inquiry and report, that's all I can say! The recommendations all sounds pretty hollow, based on my terrible experience with the LEA. Also how do I deal with the SALT and OT who work with my daughter but who the LEA will be calling as witness for their case? I am now loath to say anything positive about DD to them, for fear that they will quote me and use it against me in the Hearing! I seem to remember that there is some professional code of conduct, if someone can point me in the right direction then I can quote it if needed. This is so hard!

So pleased to hear that you won! Well done! I am appealing too, so I love to read success stories,they keep me going!

I have been following your case with interest, as I am writing an appeal to Sendist myself at the moment, against Parts 2 and 3 of DD's Statement. Have been so busy, haven't even had time to post for a while, but I am sure that I will be back, with loads of questions for you all soon! Just want to get something down on paper first. Fingers, toes, everything crossed for you, but it sounds as if the hearing went well.

Thanks Kathryn and Sally for your support. Yes, I have a letter telling me about mediation and my right of appeal. I am going to channel my anger and use it in a positive way. I am confident about my chances of success at appeal, but concerned that the publication of the final Lamb Report may "move the goal posts". All of the professional reports state that DD needs individual support in school, but the LEA have chosen to ignore that advice. They have taken extracts from the reports, and quoted them totally out of context. Even more infuriatingly, the LEA are quoting the Lamb Inquiry report "Clarity and Quality of Statements" as the reason why they are not specify any hours of support in the Statement! Unbelievable! Apparently, they changed the way they write their Statements after the publication of the report, removing any reference to the number of hours of support, because, "the Lamb Inquiry criticises the use of blanket numbers of hours in statements because this is not specific and lacks detail in showing how support will be used to meet the special educational needs of the child. Our Statements therefore no longer identify a total number of hours." Please tell me I am right and this is not legal? They seem to be missing the whole point of the Lamb Inquiry, which is improving parental confidence in the SEN system! I have read the Lamb report, and it states that "the allocation of undifferentiated hours of support assistant time is unlikely to be the most effective form of provision in securing good outcomes" But in the case of my child, who needs full-time 1:1 support throughout the day, including break time, not just 15 mins of reading or help with handwriting, then surely the Statement needs to specify the number of hours of support? I am sure that IPSEA will be very interested to hear this, when I manage to get through to them, they seem to be very busy at the moment! Has anyone else heard a similar argument from their LEA? It really is hard for me to get my head around the idea that the SEN Department set out to be as obstructive and unhelpful as possible. There is a whole department there, of very well paid people, supposedly there to help children with SEN but they seem intent on doing as little as possible. I know that it is all about money and budgets, but where is the equity in a system where assertive parents get resources, whilst others don't? BTW, does anyone know when the final Lamb Report is coming out? It was due back in September 2009.

Hello there, I have received the final version of the Statement. It is still cr@p. Despite meetings, sending in detailed amendments, they have totally ignored me and there is virtually no difference between the final statement and the draft proposed statement. Quick question, there is nothing asking me to sign or agree the Final version. I am going to appeal to the SENDIST Tribunal anyway, but I presume that there is nothing I need to sign? There is no 1:1 support quantified at all! Despite the fact that the school told the LEA that DD needs full time one to one support to access the curriculum and cope in her existing mainstream primary. How can they just ignore the advice of the school?!! I am furious, angry and livid with the LEA, beyond description! The have been obstructive, unco-operative and downright rude to me, and my taxes pay these people's wages! Sorry, bit of a rant! No doubt I will be posting again soon for advice on appealing to SENDIST.

Thanks Kathryn and Sharon, no I won't be going to anymore meetings on my own. I did ask for someone from Parent Partnership to attend, but they were too busy.....I haven't found them any use at all, to be honest, which is a shame. I really cannot believe the attitude of the LEA. Appalling! They are so nasty, I really do wonder how they sleep at night.

Thank you for your replies. I am sticking by my guns. I have read the COP and I took it to my meeting with the LEA and they just said, "it is only guidance, we no longer included hours in a Statement. We have barristers employed by us. Our Statements are legal. You are wasting your time." It was a really awful meeting, they were so rude and arrogant and clearly out to intimidate me. But I wasn't intimidated and I will not back down. I just asked them to finalise the Statement as soon as possible, so that I could appeal, but they are dragging it out to the last minute. Sally, your story is truly awful, threatening your son with nearest mainstream not even his old school. Theses people are meant to be looking after the interests of vulnerable children. They should hang their heads in shame at their attitude!

I am just about to go to appeal against a Statement that has no hours of support specified at all. I have told the LEA that the Statement is illegal in its current form - they are sticking to their guns and telling me that is their new way of doing things now, as all the SEN budget is delegated to the schools, and that the LEA's barristers have told them the Statement IS legal. I am beginning to doubt myself!

Finding this very interesting! My DD has recently been diagnosed as being severely dyslexix - it was masked by her ASD and other difficulties, so this problem has not yet been properly addressed by the school. She just cannot get phonics at all. The few words she does know she recognises as whole pictures, if that makes sense. So I would like to find similar resources to the ones Sally described that I could use at home with her.

Thanks Kathryn, that's great! Very helpful. Off to re-read the Annual report, now I understand it!

It looks like I am going to have to appeal to SENDIST (or is it now called SEND?) So I have been looking at some information on their website, on the basis that knowledge is power, and I want the LEA to know that I know what I am talking about (even if I don't really!) Anyway, looking at their last annual report and my LEA's figures, can someone explain what the terms used mean? I presume that upheld means that the appeal was decided in favour of the parents, and that maybe conceded is when the LEA back down before the Appeal hearing and that withdrawn is withdrawn by the parents? Sorry, it sounds a silly question!

Thank you for your reassurance that I AM RIGHT! The LEA Officers were so insistent that I did begin to doubt myself, but I stuck to my guns like a broken record (apologies for mixing my metaphors!) I will get advice from IPSEA and the NAS. I am actually rather scared of going to Tribunal - you will all hold my hand won't you?

Hello there, I would like to DD to have a letter from Father Christmas, but she cannot read, so I was looking for a pictogram or widget/widgit (don't know how to spell it) letter. I have a dim and distant memory of seeing one somewhere, and I think it was free! Can anyone help please? Thanks!

Just received DD's proposed Statement, with NO hours of support specified at all! School have written that she needs full-time one to one support in her mainstream school. The LEA have told me that because they delegate all SEN funding to the school, it is their policy not to specify hours of support in the Statement. I have told them that this is an illegal blanket policy, they just argued back that it WAS legal and that was how they did things at XXXXXs County Council! Woolly and vague doesn't being to describe it! Her Autism diagnosis has been put in Part 5, as non-educational, as apparently it is a medical diagnosis and not an educational need! Excuse me???!!!!! Has anyone else ever had this?!! So looks like I will be appealing to the SEND Tribunal! So disappointed, as it has been so hard to get this far and it really isn't worth the paper that it is written on!

Hello JSMum, I would be interested to know the answer to this! Our proposed statement has NO hours of support specified at all! Very disappointing after going through Statutory Assessment to get a Statement that is so woolly and vague it is really meaningless. It does not even specify the support that the school are providing at the moment and the school have asked for additional hours of support. Have taken advice and have been told that the proposed Statement is not legal - I am fuming!

Thank you for your replies, really interesting information! The Independent Ed Psych also identified that DD has severe dyslexia, so although she has a high verbal IQ, she cannot read or write. By MLD I was told Moderate Learning Difficulties. I will go and have a little read...... A

Thanks Kathryn, I am gearing up for a fight! Statement is hopeless, utterly and totally. Have obtained advice and it is potentially illegal, due to lack of detail. Really nervous about having to go to Tribunal, but I will do whatever is necessary for DD. Just want her to stay at her local school, with the support that she needs, for now anyway. It doesn't seem to much to ask from the LEA. If it really isn't workable, then a specialist placement may be the answer, but the provision in my LEA for ASD is poor, to say the least. DD is only young, and I don't want her to be ferried half way across XXXXXshire, to school every day!

Yes, guess I should ask, I'm just worried that I will get charged if I talk to her for too long!

Yes, it was so much more thorough and in-depth than the LEA one. Just trying to understand what it all means and the implications for DD.

Thanks for the replies. ASD provision is pretty scarce in my LEA, and there a lot of out of County placements as a result. No local primary schools have ASD units attached, so it is an all or nothing choice. DD is only young, so travelling long distances to specialist provision does not really appeal! I am happy to give mainstream our best shot, with full time 1:1 support, if that doesn't work out, then specialist provision will be next on my list. It is a difficult decision to make, either way. The LEA haven't said NO to mainstream, but the proposed Statement offers NO 1:1 support at all, nothing quantified or specified properly, it has more holes in it than a sieve, very disappointing!

Independent Ed Psych assessment has reported there is a huge difference between DD's verbal IQ which is high, and her performance IQ which is below average. Can anyone explain what this means? I was also told that she had a "spiky" profile. Is this part of her ASD? The LEA's brief report had shown she had an average verbal IQ and classified hear as having MLD given her overall results. Does anyone else have a similar result?

We are committed to our daughter having an inclusive education, but the Independent Ed Psych's report states that she would need full time 1:1 support, plus specialist teaching advice, IF she stays in mainstream. Which would be the more expensive option for the LEA to fund? Full-time one-to-one in mainstream, or a placement in a Specialist School? Would the LEA ignore our wishes and name a Specialist school placement, on the basis that it would be cheaper than full-time one-to-one support in her mainstream school? We are naming her present mainstream school in Part 4 of the proposed Statement. Have a meeting to discuss proposed Statement next week and I am trying to get all my facts together!