bed32

Actually that is not correct - acknowledging the difficulty the law actually reverses the burden of proof for discrimination claims, it is for the employer to prove a potentially fair reason (although this gets a bit more complex when there is less than the qualifying period). If the employer doesn't give a reasonable reason for dismissal the law will assume that the reason is the disability. As I've said above, most of the examples you give are completely wrong. 1) There is no obligation to disclose disability - so that is nonsense 2) If he is working there is an implied contract - and no contract is required anyway to claim discrimination(e.g. you can claim it if they fail to hire you because of a disability) 3) Any such allegation would need to be investigated - if such a complaint existed it could in itself be an offence under the new Equality act In general I agree that it is not worth pursuing each and every employment dispute but in this case it could be worth considering - this is not a one off but "yet another" - there aren't that many jobs out there that you can just move on to another.

I think it depends how much you are seeking to change on the statement. For simple matters where the wording of Part 3 is clearly poor (and which isn't) then it should be pretty simple to run it yourself. For more complex/expensive issues (such as asking for Independent) then you will face a harder fight. if you are going to the expense of getting independent reports then it might be a false economy not to get professional legal advice as well, particularly if you are asking for provision that will cost the LA a lot to provide. We managed the appeal against refusal to assess ourselves - but for the appeal against the statement itself we intend to take legal advice. We will probably ask a solicitor to write the appeal for us - then decide how much to involve them later.

Doesn't matter - the discrimination law covers all aspects of the process. You can even claim if you are refused a job based on your disability - the problem of course is proving it. That is one reason you are very unlikely to find any part of the job application process explicitly asking if you are disabled (as opposed possibly to asking if you need adaptations because you are disabled) you not disclosing a disability is highly unlikely to involve any form of concealment/dishonesty in the application process.

That is simply wrong in several ways. There is no obligation to disclose a disability in order to qualify for protection under the various acts. Also failure to disclose a disability could never be a fair grounds for dismissal (the exception being of course where it materially impacts some one's ability to do a job - such as a blind person driving an HGV). If he can show that his dismissal was as a result of his disability he would win a tribunal claim. The problem of course is evidence - so he needs something written down.

Did you mention that he had AS? I would recommend taking notes of any telephone conversations you have. As mentioned above "Probation" periods have no relevance to claims for dismissal for Disability (or Sex, Age, Whistleblowing and so on). If you want to follow this up then you will need to get something in writing. Probably best to right formally saying the you wish to appeal the dismissal and that you believe that he was dismissed because of his disability. If you put that in writing then the will have to respond and address the allegation.

There is no minimum qualifying period for a claim of unfair dismissal on the grounds of disability. If he has been dismissed because the other employees don't like working with him for a reason that is directly related to his disability that is jsut the same as being dismissed because they don't want to work with a woman, or a black person. It is totally unacceptable and ought to be contested. The case is weakened because he didn't say up front that he is AS - but you don't need to say you are disabled to be protected by the discrimination legislation. If he writes and appeals the dismissal on the grounds that it is related to his disability then the company would have to act - or face a pretty much unwinnable case in front of the tribunal.

Only it you've met him personally - and I doubt if you are that old. You are relying on the evidence of others - and you choose to believe that evidence. There are several eye-witness records of the resurrection of Jesus (or the existence of aliens, or of ghosts) and you choose not to believe those. We only really "know" very little - for almost everything else we rely on the evidence of others, and the way we interpret that evidence reflects our belief system/religiion.

I am sure it is difficult, but I think he should tell both HR and his line manager. Whether that is at application time or whether to wait until he has the job, is a different matter. Had the company known he would have had a very strong case for discrimination, it is much harder if he didn't tell the company - but I think he does still have a case (particularly since the reason for dismissal does not relate directly to his ability to do his job - so he has not been asking the employer to make any adjustments). If it matters that much you could call them/write to them explaining that he has AS and asking them to reconsider, if you state that you believe he has been dismissed because of his disability you can be sure to be taken seriously.

You can observe that green paint is green (in fact that is true by definition) and that rain is wet. Belief really covers those things that you can't see/prove. So I believe that Julius Caeser existed, I believe that the Big Bang happened and so on.... Note religion also has the concept of "faith" that goes beyond belief - but that is a different issue. Lots of people believe in luck - that is why so many people buy lottery tickets....

Whether you call yourself an Atheist or not, your statement is just as much a statement of belief as to say you do believe in God. Many people would say that to believe that we exist purely by chance requires a much greater leap of faith than to believe in God - particularly those who understand just how "lucky" we are that the fundamental physical constants just happen to work for life.

The school my son is at sent the entire staff on a 1 day autism awareness course. That can barely start introducing the issues, let alone solutions. They continue to make the same fundamental mistakes in spite of the course, and having almost 5 years experience with our son, let alone other ASD-diagnosed children in the school.

That is an example of something that is simply not a question for a Mathematician or Physicist. The human perception is that time is linear, but we now know that is not the case. The trendy "String Theory" suggests that the universe has at least 10 space-time dimensions The question as to "what God did before time began" is about the same as "what happened before the Big Bang". The idea of the universe existing for an infinite time before the big bang is clearly impossible. it becomes no easier or harder to comprehend if you put God into it. Time is no more than another dimension - one in which at present we are compelled to move in a just one direction at a pretty constant rate - but that does not preclude the possibility of things that are not constrained by time. Ultimately the existence of God is a matter of morality/philosophy rather than physics. Almost everyone (except those who don't think at all) has a philosophy/world-view that guides their view of the world and the decisions they take. Fundamentally ALL are a matter of faith and to say one is an atheist is just as much a statement of faith/belief as to say one is a Christian - or adherent of any other religion. Also to pretend any one is more "rational" than another is pretty much a matter of conceit.

Both Mathematicians and Nuclear Physicists are well used to working with concepts outside the scope of normal human understanding and are trained to some extend to recognise and compensate for the limitations of our natural understanding/intuition. Where most atheist (or humanist) arguments fall down is that they start from the premise that human understanding is supreme and so of course they cannot comprehend anything beyond their own understanding. In some ways it is those who are dealing with the most fundamental laws of the universe who are closest to understanding the true nature of things. A molecular biologist may understand how life works at one level, but can't comment on "why?" or even understand the fundamental laws of the universe that makes life possible. In some sense everyone has a religion and gods - everyone who has thought about these things comes to their own opinion about the authority of various belief systems. To someone like Dawkins, man is God and humanity is the supreme arbiter of good and evil. I don't see how the science of Autism can persuade someone to abandon religion per se - although there are several forms of religion that are just as confused about their response to science as some scientists are to religion.

In general I think TAs in primary schools are a good thing - they increase the amount of time that can be spent 1-1 with each pupil and in our experience they actually tend to be very good. When I was in primary school we had 1 teacher for a class of up to 40 children - so the modern style of 2 adults between 30 much be better - all other things being equal. In fact in the case of our ASD son, the TA that helps him is much better than the class teacher and much better at building a rapport with him (and I imagine the other pupils in the class). Although I don't know what's out there (hence the thread) I would have thought that even a basic level useful ASD qualification would require something of the order of 100-200 hours training (plus assignments) and that for someone to take a leading responsibility for the education would require something equivalent to a 1 year course.

I think we will have no problem challenging a Mainstream placement - no one (including the LA EP) think that that is the right environment for him. What will be more tricky is justifying an independent specialist Aspergers school over a more general Special school, or ASD school.

At present they are certainly only managing him - and in fact not even that as things are getting worse rather than better (but not dramatically so). Even when we get the hours increased through the statement, if the same personnel and strategies are used then it won't really make a whole lot of difference. It will be easier for the school but not necessarily better for him. Our problem is that there is not even a particularly attractive independent option for this age. We have looked at some schools that we would consider yr7+ and while we like a couple of them (and they will take children from Yr4) they are all some distance away and so would require either a long taxi (1hr+) either way or boarding, neither of which we particularly like. At primary I am sure he could cope with good ASD provision within a Mainstream environment (probably not a unit in MS as they tend to be MLD at that level) and that is beginning to seem like the most attractive short term option - unfortunately I haven't found a suitable school so far

Sorry LancsLad - I was trying to avoid the MS / Specialist issue in the original post as it is to some extent irrelevant, The requirement of the statement is to specify what he needs to obtain a basic education - and only once that is agreed should we consider the best environment in which to provide that. As parents we have little control over who the LA/school choose to employ - the only leverage we have is that they must comply with the statement, and so it is important that the statement is specific in requiring qualifications and/or experience. So although in many cases I know there are excellent ASD teachers without formal qualifications, it is important that we as parents retain the right to reject provision that doesn't comply with the statement. So looking forward over the next 6 months the matter of qualifications may become important for two reasons (a) when assessing provision within his current placement, whether the resources proposed by the LA/school are appropriate ( When considering alternative placement, whether the staff at the school are suitably qualified - this is particularly important at the moment as we are being asked to consider a school that does not yet exist and in that case the qualifications and experience of the staff are about all we really have to go on Lynden - yes we would like to stick with the current TA if possible, but getting the right balance of skills and experience across the range of professionals involved is a delicate balancing act. Hence the question as to whether it is feasible to obtain a reasonable level of ASD training in a short period of time - I certainly mean more than the one day Autism awareness courses. What is critically missing from his education at the moment is professional advice from someone who understands autism and can provide guidance as to what the school should be doing on a day-to-day basis - I think it needs an Autism expert to have regular oversight of his progress and to advise on appropriate strategies on a regular basis

Clearly so in the sense that he is well over all the criteria for Autism (as opposed to say AS) on all the diagnostic scales. Also anyone with any knowledge of the area picks up on his autism within 5 minutes of meeting him, and this has been clear since age 3. In contrast it was a bit of a shock for us when one of his cousins (much older) was diagnosed as Aspergers at the age of 12. This is not a child who can cope in school with only 15 hours provision - everyone agrees that he needs both full time TA and a lot of additional therapy on top. Many people with AS or less severe Autism (and of course we now know a lot of them) cope adequately in Mainstream - albeit they often feel like the odd one out and are likely to underperform without support. For children like that then clearly inclusion with support is a very good option. Just to make it clear - I am in no way underestimating the challenges faced by all people "on the spectrum" at all stages of education and life - but it is not a "one size fits all" condition and it is very difficult to try to generalise about appropriate provision.

There are two aspects to his school life that require specialist help. Firstly just coping with the environment - the particular issue at the moment is that no one arround him really understands the impact of Autism. I get very frustrated about being told time and again about another "incident" at school which would not have happened had there been an Autism-trained resource on hand. To someone who understands Autism, our son is very predictable and I believe he would be much happier, and have fewer (in fact no) incidents, if someone who understands the basics of Autism were on hand all the time. Even the LA agrees with this an it will be in the statement when it is finalised in a couple of weeks. The second is the much harder issue. It is clear that there are many key skills that he is incapable of picking up on his own as other children do. He needs to be taught about emotions, how to manage is anxieties, how to interact with his peers and so on - and also the most basic skills for problem solving and managing his life. That won't happen without expert input that is not in place at the moment. The dilemma is that his present (part time) TA is building a good relationship and has the right character to get on well with him. But if we rely on him alone (at least without more training) then it is going to be all about just managing him in school rather than actively teaching him the skills he needs. At present there is no way he can be considered for a mainstream secondary school - in fact we think the LA will propose transfering him to a specialist primary school next term. Without intensive help over the next couple of years MS secondary is not an option, and TBH I am not sure that it would be even with the best help available, but we really ought to at least give it a go as I believe MS (probably with ASD unit) is both best for him and vastly cheaper for the LA than the alternatives Lancs Lad - I am posting about my son who is Autistic and clearly so. This is not about a child who is able to cope in a mainstream environment so if you are thinking from the perspective of someone with a Mild Autism, or even AS that may not even be detected diagnosed until 12 or even later (I have a nephew like that) then you are totally missing the point. An Autistic child finds EVERY aspect of mainstream education confusing and stressful and many can't cope. Lack of appropriate provision means that our son is effectively being excluded from education all together. Partly because he is being sent out of the class frequently, and partly because even if he is physically present in the class room he still does not take in what is going one due to a range of sensory, communication and social reasons. This is not about us wanting the best for our son, it is about his right to get an education at all.

All the advice on statements emphasizes how important it is to specify that teachers are Qualified/Experienced. I am wondering what qualifications there are out there that relate specifically ASD? When assessing whether a teacher - or TA - is suitable what specific qualifications or key experience should I be looking for, and if I get the opportunity to speak to them what sort of questions should I be asking. On a slightly different tack, our son now has a TA (with no experience in anything at all) for about 15 hours a week, and provision will go up to full time once the statement is finalised in a couple of weeks time. We like this chap, and school are pleased with the way he is working with our son. The statement will specify a "qualified" TA (in ASD terms) which this chap certainly isn't. Is there a credible way of getting him on-the-job training over the next few months or should we be looking to request that the school replace him with someone who is ASD-qualified (that really won't go down well).

A significant difference between this an other changes the coalition government has made, is that these changes have been in the pipeline for a long time. The initial work on which the Green paper was based was done back in 2006(IIRC) and I think has broad cross-party support. If you read the work done at the time it seems that they had a pretty good grasp of the issues, and certainly the objectives set out in the Green Paper have been pretty much universally supported (although questions exist as to the implementation). There has been a good consultation on the Green Paper (although we don't yet know what the white paper will look like) and as far as I can tell most of the people I would trust are broadly supportive of the objectives. The nature of the passage of a Bill through parliament is that there is plenty of time for the results of any pathfinder projects to be incorporated into the final bill even though they are not yet off the ground. The idea of the "Individual Budget" for disabled children was the subject of a two year pilot programme set up by the last Government. All this makes for a much more considered set of changes than, say, the NHS reforms.

The IPSEA report certainly points out specific issues with the Pathfinder that may not exist with the final version - particularly the ambiguity about the rules under which it will operate. Other than that their concerns seem to be more about whether DfES actually does what it is saying it will do - and whether the LA Officers understand the changes being proposed (which they clearly don't). They already highlight the key DfES statement that we as parents will continue to have the same statutory protection that we do now - and assuming that is 100% accurate then I just don't see the downside. At present it seems that we have to use SENDDIST every time to get our rights so provided that same level of protection is in place then it simply can't really get any worse than it is now (at least not with my LA - others may have better experiences). I do disagree about the motivation for the changes - these have been a long time coming dating from (IIRC) a report of about 2006 into SEN - the objectives seem to be well intentioned and appear to try to address many of the issues that we have all experienced with the current system. As to costs - it ought to be cost-neutral. Our children don't get any additional rights (at least not the right to any additional provision) but it just tries to connect up how that is provided. From my own perspective I think the changes may be useful - if there is a specific therapy that I would like for our son (e.g. Sensory Integration Therapy) then we can look to have that provided via a budget rather than LA having to buy it in themselves, and it raises the possibility of us integrating private and LA funded provision seemlessly that is just not possible now.

What evidence is there for the assertion that the Government wants to make individual budgets compulsory? I have not seen any basis for that. The details are not yet available - but we have to work on the assumption that whatever replaces statements retains the same legal force as the statement - and in fact that in itself is a good thing as raises the non-educational requirements to the same legal status as the educational requirements, so the current rather spurious distinction between Parts 2 & 5 (and 3 & 6) vanishes - and that must be good. I also strongly approve of the changes at SA, SAP - they are crazy/useless in their current form. In our area there is essentially NO delegated funding for SA/SAP (in fact about £500 a year per pupil) so they are both over-used and under-funded. I would hope that for children with a diagnosis then the removal of that distinction should be an improvement as there should be a more graduated response rather than the present All (statement) or Nothing (SAP) The responses I have read on this from NAS and solicitors specialising in SEN are all broadly supportive While there are clearly some issues where the details have not been finalised. I share concerns that there must be no dilution of the current legal rights of SEN children but I can see no evidence that that is the intention of the reforms - In fact I am more concerned that this will happen by accident rather than by design so I think we need to support IPSEA/NAS and so on as they analyse the proposals in detail. Also the proposals seek to remove the crazy distinction where Academies/Free Schools are not bound by SEN - which again I regard as entirely positive. There have been a number of shocking cases recently of Academies trying to wriggle through holes in the current legislation and closing those holes can only be a good thing.

There is a lot of uncertainty around the fine details of the eventual legislation - and that of course causes anxieties for all of us. However as far as I can ascertain there is no concrete proposal that anyone thinks will adversely impact our children, what concerns there are are around the details of the legislation and whether any existing legal safeguards will be lost. The specific issue of direct funding seems to have no disadvantages. It is not compulsory, so anyone who not happy can just say "No Thanks" and as it appears to being introduced under the existing SEN laws there is no possibility of it removing any existing rights. What is laughable is articles like the first of those Sally quotes that clearly indicates how "ridiculous" the current system is but is suspicious of proposals designed to improve many of the clear problems with status quo. There can't be many people on this forum who think that the current system is perfect - and I imagine very few who disagree with the objectives of the reforms. Surely we should be broadly welcoming that fact that something is being done, while scrutinising the details to ensure that nothing essential gets lost on the way - rather than standing back and sniping a proposals just because we don't trust the motives of the (Labour) government that introduced them?

In general I believe that people who regard science as being in conflict with religion have a serious misunderstanding of one, and probably both. Broadly speaking science is about "how" and religion about "why". If science contradicted religion then all good scientists would be atheists - and that is clearly not the case. This is clearly very difficult for many people on ASD whose rigid and logical thought patterns seem to struggle to understand the less tangible concepts of philosophy. Our son is at a C of E school but is at present very resistant to anything religious that is certainly making life very difficult - we have a family wedding coming up in a couple of months and I am not sure we are going to be able to get him to attend. One of the problems he has, again I believe in common with many ASD children, is an intolerance to other people's opinions if they differ from his. I don't see anything in the parenting of an ASD child that would cause someone to abandon religion, rather the opposite as the inclusivity of christian message (particularly of the reformed churches - the Catholics are a law unto themselves) should be welcoming to those who find that most of the secular organisations are at best indifferent and more commonly actively hostile to ASD children.