bed32

Before anyone gets too worried about it - I should point out that I believe the Funding to be purely optional. It will remain an option for any parents to require the LA to continue to provide the necessary services exactly as they do now. Some form of pilot has been running for about 3 years now and there is a long evaluation of it published. I am not sure that the proposals will make that much difference to children whose primary SEN is ASD - it seems more focussed on joining up the educational and social needs of those children with greater direct social/health issues than most ASD children.

You certainly have the right to appeal if no change is made following an annual review - but I am not sure the right exists at any other time unless the LA propose a change themselves. However I am not an expert!

I think you have to be a little careful here. As I read it you probably don't have the right to appeal at this point if they do not change the statement. You may have to wait until the annual review before you get a right to go to SENDDIST. You could possibly ask the council to reassess - but if they refuse you would need to go to tribunal on their refusal to reassess, then go to tribunal again if they refused to change the statement - by which time you might as well have waited for the annual review Take advice from IPSEA or SOS!SEN on this. Unfortunately if they dig their heals in it could take a long time before you can get this

I suppose it still doesn't mean that she had bothered to read them. Fingers crossed that common sense prevails and she acts on the recommendations without you needing to take if further. Surely LAs must sometimes act in the best interests of the child.

Had the LEA bod already seen the evidence you were presenting? If not she may have felt a little ambushed herself. The key issue is how they respond - they may take the reports on board and try to find a better placement, or they may just ignore you. You probably need to contact IPSEA, or take legal advice, on whether you have the right to appeal now. It may be that you need to make a formal request for re-assessment before getting the right of appeal to SENDDIST

I'm sure you'll find that the admissions criteria specifies statemented children with the school named on the statement - so if the school refuses to be named then it doesn't help much. I looked into this a few months ago - it appears that the requirement to take statemented children arises from the contract (funding arrangement) between the academy and the LA - so if that doesn't require them to take statemented children then technically they are probably within their rights to refuse - that is what the case will be all about. It is a shocking situation - especially in the particular case where there appears to be no conceivable reason for them not to accept him

Looks interesting. From the point of view of the school - they only have a certain range of tools available to them. If they have resources trained in the thrive assessment then it is natural that they should want to try them on ASD chlidren - I don't think there is likely to be any implied criticism of you in that. Information on this is very sketchy, but it seems that parts of this could be applicable to ASD children. The assessment is likely to be applicable. What would concern me a little was whether any suggested interventions would be applicable to ASD children. In my opinion the issues that lead to the emotional/behavioural problems in ASD children lie deeper than those in NT children who may exhibit similar behaviours. Interventions appropriate to NT children with genuine emotional issues may not be appropriate to ASD children

If you haven't started doing so already - make sure you keep a log of all such incidents - what the school say to you and why. If they say he is sick take him straight to the GP. From our experience Yr R is a very difficult time - most people would say that it is too early to give a formal diagnosis of ASD (and I think I would agree) but it is when you first start seeing problems As a word of warning - be careful about alienating/antagonising the school more than you need to. For better or worse they are going to be your partners in this for the next 6 years or so. It is better to have them on your side as much as possible - getting too stroppy too soon might be counter-productive. You will have plenty of issues to address over the years - always best to choose the ones you make a fuss over. If you are not happy they are taking it seriously - it just takes a simple letter to the LA to request a formal assessment of SEN - you unlikely to get the assessment but it should require the school to make a formal statement of the issues and how they are handling them.

Even Ofsted are critical of the standard of GCSE and A Level saying that they are failing able students. It is noticable that many of the best schools now prefer a range of different qualifications (e.g. IGCSE) to the domestic ones. The root of the problem is the idea of "One Size Fits All" education that has been prevelant for the past 30-40 years - it is clearly nonsense but has been driving education to an imaginary middle ground that works for no one

It all sounds shocking - but I am afraid not surprising. You need to be keeping a detailed record of everything that happens, with as much supporting evidence as possible (e.g. photos) To be honest the best thing for you to do is get your son out of there - no amount of complaining is going to make it a better school. it is not clear from your post whether you have actually found another school - if not then I would start looking now! In general I think you will find complaining a very frustrating process and it won't necessarily improve anything - better just to get out and concentrate on doing what is best for your son than waste a lot of energy fighting a battle when winning won't really do you any good. If the school is a church school as you suggest then you will probably want to right initially to the governors and then appehal somehow through the church hierarchy. Alternatively you could go to a solicitor and get them to take action - there are potential remedies under the disability discrimination act, and the protection from harassment act In England the AS diagnosis would help a lot - but not sure how things work in Scotland

We may face this same issue - our LA is supposedly setting up a new unit next year and they think M might be an appropriate candidate. We are still going through the statement process but if we were to go for an independent placement we could face the same problems if/when that school comes on line.

I am watching this one with interest. As I understand it the LA can amend the statement whenever they like - and can implement the revised statement immediately. You can of course appeal but I think they have the right to change his placement immediately pending the appeal (if this is the case then it is shocking - but as I read the rules it is permitted). It might be somewhat different if you went through appeal first time to get his current placement on Part 4. Certainly you need to contact IPSEA or SOSSEN or the like - this needs specialist advice.

I would certainly agree that what makes you successful is hard work and determination (and a bit of luck) rather than just being bright. At schools (even good ones) it never pays to be top of the class - and if you are bright enough to find school easy then you don't get into the habit of pushing yourself. The current education policy of "inclusion" that tries to educate both the brightest and children with Moderate SEN in the same class does no one any good. We really need education for all that is focussed on a particular set of needs (SEN or not) rather than this "One Size fits No One" philosophy we have now

I think the problem is really a matter of definition - so what is included in SEN. If 20% of children are defined as SEN then it becomes a bit of a contradiction - issues facing that many children should be catered for in mainstream as a matter of course and do not justify the tag "Special". It is too easy just to label any child SEN. To do so devalues the term for those children who have genuine severe Special Educational Needs.

At the moment SEN provision is not really at risk from budget cuts (at least not for statemented children) as the provision is statutory and does not take account of affordability (beyond being the cheapest). To move away from the system where the children no longer have a statutory right to have their needs met would be a retrograde step. In our LA the non-statemented provision is pitiful - I think the school's SEN budget amounts to about £300 per child on SAP/SAP per year It would indeed be much better if more SEN provision came out of the LAs general budget (or NHS) and was available to all children who need it rather than just those with statements - but it would be very hard to make that a (quantifiable) statutory requirement. The new process may indeed be a step towards that if the have fewer SEN children, but those that are have more tightly defined needs - but my real fear is that we are in for 5 or more years of chaos while the system is introduced, breaks, and is mended - and by the time it is working properly it will be too late for our children

A SEN Child does not have a right to the "best" education, or even (now) an "appropriate" education - but rather just an "Adequate" education. That is a pretty low standard and equivalent to what an NT child would get in any state school (other than maybe a few failng schools). However many - if not most - parents of ASD children end up appealing the statement through tribunal and a high proportion of those who appeal are successful. That shows that in a high proportion of cases the LA is not even supplying that bare minimum "adequate" education for ASD children. That is a scandal - but these changes are not intended to address that Another problem with the SEN system now is that it seems to be "all or nothing". So if say I choose to place my ASD son in a private school the LA will wash their hands of him and not contribute to the costs attributable to his SEN as they would have to in mainstream school. So even if we are willing and able to contribute to getting our son the best education that is very difficult to achieve with a SEN child.

My fear with the changes is not so much the intentions of the legislation and the governments that pass it but the fact that at the coal face it will still be overseen by the same people who make such a mess of the current process. I don't think the LAs act in good faith, and so the legislation needs to be water-tight.

Canopus I have yet to find a single parent who thinks the LA provides anything without a fight - let alone providing it on a gold plate. That in fact is part of the problem. Rather than LA cooperating the experience of most people is that they obstruct the process at every stage and you have to fight for even the most basic provision. Your post highlights one of the problems ASD people face - it is the "hidden disability". If the same questions about right to access to education were asked about children in a wheelchair, no one would question it, but because ASD children can look, and often behave normally a lot of the time, people don't seem to acknowledge that they are as disabled than a child in a wheelchair. In fact more so in educational terms because the disability directly impacts their ability to learn in an environment optimised for NT children. IMHO a particular scandal about the education of ASD children is how inefficient it is. Properly joined-up provision would be both more effective for the child and much cheaper for the country. I am very happy for the voluntary sector to play a role. Round here I have a lot more faith in the services provided by NAS than those provided by LA/NHS. Although classed as voluntary, a lot of their workers were full time paid staff and in my experience had a much better understanding of ASD than many of the CAMHS people who were less specialised (having to deal with a wider variety of conditions)

Putting my selfish hat on - and remembering that we are posting on an ASD board - I think the tightening up of the definition of SEN is a good thing. The concept of School Action / School Action Plus is so devalued these days that it tends to undermine the whole concept of SEN for those who have a genuine disability. Once again for those trying to make a political point I would remind people that this is essentially a Labour initiative that has been carried on, apparently without significant change, by the coalition. It appears to have arisen out of a genuine acknowledgement that the SEN process was very poor and failing our children.

The key issue is whether our children retain a statutory right to appropriate provision. If we do - and that right is enforceable through the tribunal - then I think the changes are likely to be a good thing as it does seem to do away with some of the distinctions between educational and other needs.

The key thing is whether we continue to have a statutory right to "adequate" provision (although I gather that was quietly reduced from "appropriate" some time ago). If we do then the budget is not our problem; if not then it will be a disaster I think there is scope for some positives from this - if they tidy up and extend the role of the tribunal to cover all aspects then the current issues with the enforcability (or lack of) of Part 6 should be resolved. Note at one point at least this individual budget explicitly excluded provision in school, also as far as I can tell there is no compulsion and parents will continue to have the option to ask LA to provide the services directly.

Special_talent I hate to get in the way of a good rant - but in all fairness I should point out that this is a Labour policy that was well underway before the coalition took office. As an aside I notice that education provision within schools appears to be explicitly excluded from the IB proposals. In fact it seems more aimed at disabled children who have multiple needs - not just educational - and actually looks weak in its support for ASD and SpLD

I don't think this actually started out as a cost cutting measure - and it may be even now at the central government level they don't see it as that. However our experience is that on the ground the LA/NHS will try as hard as the can to avoid paying for anything and however well-intentioned the original idea by the time it has been filtered by the various jobsworths along the way they are bound to use it as an excuse for trying to wriggle out of something.

I think the stated objectives are good - there is no doubt that SEN provision at and beyond statement level is appalling and not fit for purpose. Surely every parent here has had to fight the LA time and time again to get the provision our children need. Even the idea of parents having contol over budgets is potentially good - especially if it gives us greater flexibility in the services we "purchase" - but there are huge potential pitfalls. How are these budgets going to be set and reviewed - are we going to end up going through SENDDIST every few months as the cost of provision goes up? Does this mean that we as parents are going to have to be continually commissioning and reviewing the care?

I'm sure this has been discussed before - but what will the proposed changes to SEN mean for our statemented children with ASD? Has NAS or someone published any information? While there is no doubt that the whole SEN process is not fit for purpose - at least with the present system we know where we stand and once we have a statement we have considerable rights. On the positive side I can see a lot of benefits in parents having direct control over the budget, but on the negative side I just don't see how that budget is going to be set fairly.